Avoid Else, Return Early (2013) | Hacker News Reader

Avoid Else, Return Early (2013)

blog.timoxley.com

682 pointssigna11578 comments

Programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early, sorting exit conditions at top and meat of the methods at the bottom.

Same way you evolve out of one liners.

Same way comments are extra weight that should only be in public or algorithm/need to know areas.

Same way braces go on the end of the method/class name to reduce LOC.

Same way you move on from heavy OO to dicts/lists.

Same way you go more composition instead of inheritance.

Same way while/do/while usually fades away, and if needed exit conditions.

Same way you move on from single condition bracket-less ifs. (debatable but more merge friendly and OP hasn't yet)

Same way you get joy deleting large swaths of code.

and many others on and on.

Usually these come from hours of writing/maintaining code and styles that lead to bugs.

>Same way while/do/while is usually fades away, and if needed exit conditions.

I couldn't interpret this sentence.

Edited, basically do not use while loops, if you do tread carefully and provide yourself an exit. You don't want to be the one that nukes the server.

Did you mean to use for with no counter instead? If so - I strongly disagree. I much prefer while(condition) {} to for (;condition;) {}

For one thing you can't misplace ";" in a while loop.

I agree that "do while" loops are unintuitive and rarely used, and thus the place to first check for bugs. Also they save very little so I just implement them as do(); while usually.

But I know people who disagree about that, too, and shout at me for avoiding them:) It seems what's unintuitive for me isn't so for others.

Basically what I am saying is while should be mostly off limits.

But yes if you end up in a loop you have some sort of counter/null checks or way out if you end up in a constant/recursive loop.

Never leave open the possibility of a lock due to being stuck in a loop.

You want to write "cat" equivalent. How do you do the loop?

I think for loops should be limited to iteration over collections, or repeating sth known number of times.

There are cases when you need to decide if you want to continue iteration on the fly, and while loop is the perfect tool for that. Also while loop is arguably less error-prone than for loop: can't swap clauses because there's just one, can't write "," instead of ";" by mistake.

Dijkstra's approach towards provably correct programs has changed my opinion on loops somewhat.

Among all types a 'while' loop gives the strongest mathematical guarantees. In particular it ensures a condition is true at the start of each iteration, and is false when exiting the while loop. Combining this with loop invariants leads to precise and straightforward to verify code.

Avoiding while loops to ensure an exit just seems to be sacrificing a lot of power in exchange for some pretty shaky guarantees that your loop will finish.

Although in the majority of cases where a while loop could be used you're simply iterating over some (implicit) data structure. In which case it's obviously better to make this explicit using a "for ... in" loop.

I learned about while loops at the beginning of my career, and after a few scary errors, I never used them again. 20 years of no while loops anywhere... never going back.

Exactly, I did all of the above. Spent too many hours fixing broken code (of my own) and finally I started to learn.

What about error handling? No mention here. What I do not is let the library/framework to handle most of it. With a recent server library I wrote, I can throw anywhere and it will be caught and displayed as expected without extra try/catch.

Errors are the exception, not the rule :)

Can't tell if a logical point or a pun...

The feeling is mutual; not exclusively :)

> Same way you move on from heavy OO to dicts/lists.

OO is better if the objects tell a story in a way that ProviderStrategyDataFetchers fail to do so and are effectively just wrappers for data structures. If you go pure data structure without story you just end having to add comments to explain purpose. The comments are the classes.

I agree with both you and the OP. OO where necessary, lists and dicts where things are simple. You can always take a list of strings and turn it into a list of objects. But going the other way is harder because you have to refactor anything that depends on them.

The concern is when you encounter a list of very dense transforms between different data structures without anything informing you as to the purpose or even reason for these operations. Is it _just_ to build the output, are there critical side effects in the process? Are the apis just so bad that all these operations _need_ to be performed or is just pure 100% required processing? Method names help somewhat if people are adverse to objects. All that concerns me is that much modern functional code often becomes very dense transforms with little narrative to inform the reader.

>braces go on the end of the method/class name to reduce LOC

You could argue the placement of braces with lots of valid arguments both way, but this... to reduce LOC ? Doesn't feel like a valid reason in any language using braces...

Oh but it is, independent of the language. Fewer LOC means more code on the screen, which means you can more easily grasp the functionality of some piece of code, which makes it easier to maintain.

> Fewer LOC means more code on the screen, which means you can more easily grasp the functionality of some piece of code,

uh ? for me the less code on each line and the easier it is to read

When it comes to bracket placement, we're talking about empty lines. They don't affect the amount of code on a line.

That depends. Python's pep guidelines has an 80 char wide rule, but I personally find that a lot harder to read than one long line (most of the time).

I find the 80 chars too short but, and this is highly objective, I notice I am more relaxed and usually having more fun when working with shorter lines. The best theory a I have as to why is just that most lines in code are short so long lines require making my eyes deviate from the code structure. If there is a long line, it will probably be out of place. So, my personal rule is to avoid that one or two lines that juts out beyond the lines above and below it. If all lines in a block are long, they are often similar commands/expressions which makes them orderly, and not so discomforting.

It's pretty sweet when you need to read code in a console that's limited to 80 characters. Also, it makes it easy to have two files opened side-by-side.

Eh, all things equal, the less the number of lines the more readable.

I disagree. Consider the absurd example where every single statement is crammed into a single line. Not exactly readable to me?

Sometimes more verbose code is more readable, and sometimes it is the presentation, and sometimes this is "superfluous lines", that increase LOC.

That's covered by "all things equal".

The argument against placing braces on their own line is that this:

    if (a)
    {
        print(a)
    }

conveys exactly as much information as this:

    if (a) {
        print(a)
    }

while taking up more space. The thing the brace tells you is already told by the indentation, so the brace is on a superfluous line.

> The thing the brace tells you is already told by the indentation

Which is true, and of course begs the question: why do you even need the braces?

1) I frequently tell my diffs to ignore whitespace so I can see my structural changes without getting drowned in a sea of indentation changes when introducing new scopes. Not viable when diffing python.

2) I semi-frequently make indentation mistakes when resolving merge conflicts. In braced languages this is fixed by an autoreformat. In unbraced languages, I have to take a lot more care with merging, lest I end up in yet another lengthy debugging session ending in facepalms - or worse, check it in.

3) Redundancy in the face of typos and whitespace destroying mediums such as many pieces of web technology - comments sections, forums, etc.

In this specific case

    if (a) {
        print(a)
    }

and if (a) { print(a) }

Could just be if (a) print (a)

Except in perl, where it's

    print (a) if (a)

And if you want to add a second line you have to change it, thus I got into the habit of

    if (a) { print(a) }

But I don't code for a living, any more than I run network cables for a living, or screw things into bays for a living. I code as a tool to get the job done, most recently that was writing some perl to parse the output of a tcpdump which was outputting rtp sequence number discontinuities to see where packet loss was occurring, what jitter was going on, etc. Fast, to the point, isolate the problem (crappy juniper srx), fix the problem (replace with mikrotik ccr), job done, drink beer.

I do like one-liner conditionals (at least short ones for early bailout) but sadly my coworkers and their coding standards do not.

Off-topic and pedantic pet peeve, would you mind replacing "begs the question" with "raises the question". The former might not mean what you intended.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the first version easier to parse visually. When the coding convention forces me to put the brace on the same line, I end up doing:

    if (user.exists()) {

        destroyHuman(user);
        hideRemains(user);
    }

"this... to reduce LOC ? Doesn't feel like a valid reason in any language using braces..."

It's not really a valid reason. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think LOC is a valid metric.

Here's an extreme, yet very real example: mandatory Doxygen comments on accessors:

  /**
   * Get the foo
   *
   * @return the foo
   */
  int getFoo();

  /**
   * Get the bar
   *
   * @return the bar
   */
  float getBar();

  /**
   * Set the foo
   *
   * @param foo the foo
   */
  void setFoo(int foo);

  /**
   * Set the bar
   *
   * @param bar  the bar
   */
  void setBar(float bar);

Compare with what any sane project would do:

  int   getFoo();
  float getBar();

  void setFoo(int   foo);
  void setBar(float bar);

Multiply that by a dozen such attributes, and what should fit on a single screen spans now hundreds of lines. What you could see at a glance, you have to search for. There's simply no way those utterly redundant comments increase readability. (Yes, the real comments in the real code were just as redundant.)

LOC is more valid as a metric than most care to admit.

Meh. It's noise but what's the harm? It was generated by an IDE so nobody had to physically type that. And usually no developer will be dwelling on this object or this area of the object. It just sits there doing no harm to anyone.

>LOC is more valid as a metric than most care to admit.

It's not.

I seem to recall that LOC correlated just as heavily with bugs and other problems as any other measure it was put up against. And, just like every other measure, gaming it leads to a degenerative case. (Can't remember where I saw this, or I would provide a citation.)

I'll repeat my current gut feeling. Intrinsic measures of software quality are terrible as guides for how to write code. They are decent at predicting quality, but are not usable in a prescriptive way to write quality code.

> It was generated by an IDE

Not all of it, actually.

> nobody had to physically type that

We totally had to read that.

> And usually no developer will be dwelling on this object or this area of the object.

Well… yes, usually. Sometimes however we did want to pay more attention than usual. At that point the original dev would have made a real comment. And that comment was lost in the noise, so you couldn't even distinguish between real comments and useless boilerplate.

Also: Why use get and set accessors for private fields at all, when you can just use:

int foo; float bar;

That can later be changed, when the need arises.

Or you use scala:

case class Baz(foo: Int, bar: Float)

Gives you a free hashCode, equals and copy as well.

Let's say we can see 30 lines on our screen and the average function takes 5 lines with OTBS. That means we can see 6 functions at once with OTBS and 5 with Allman. That makes a difference at least in my case.

Not being a pest here, but how often are you comparing more than 2 functions at a time? I can't say that I have ever dealt with code in over 20 years where I had to deal with more than 2 functions at once.

Maybe I am mentally disabled, but I can only focus on one logical task at a time. Can other programmers multi-task their coding?

All the time, but to be honest, it's mainly side by side when I do. This is useful when building one function that acts on some other part of the code and I don't want to scroll / swap files back and forth.

I more meant it in the sense that it's nice to be able to soak in more of the code at once and avoid unnecessary scrolling.

Refactoring might have you adding a parameter to a function, and then feeding that additional parameter to the function at it's call sites. Even when you only have one call site and thus are in the "2 functions" case - these two functions are often separated by multiple "irrelevant" functions.

The less scrolling, tab management, and other context switching I have to do to look at those "2" functions, the easier it is on my memory.

>The less scrolling, tab management, and other context switching I have to do to look at those "2" functions, the easier it is on my memory.

I don't disagree, but the sentiment seems to be "fit everything on the screen at all times", which seems like one of those rules that may take more time to implement than it saves in actual time.

I work on projects with upwards of 100k lines of code consistently, the very idea that anything relevant will fit on one screen is absurd, so I am always curious what kinds of projects people work on where the relevant code is literally within a half screen of each other.

I tend to work on gamedev codebases roughly near a 1mloc (both above and bellow.) In one recent refactoring I recently managed to get a class declaration (that was previously local to a single .cpp and had all functions defined inline in one go) to fit on a screen. I use small fonts, 4k resolution monitors, portrait orientation, and I still had to cull some "GetFoo gets a foo" style worthless doc comments to accomplish it. (I kept the comments that actually added anything of meaning.)

Given that above description, you can probably guess I don't have everything on screen at all times, not even close. But I'll refactor off small files of related functionality where I can, subdivide things that are getting unwieldy, etc. - put private/static functions near the public/exported functions that call them, break things up into (sub)modules, etc. and get good grouping.

> I don't disagree, but the sentiment seems to be "fit everything on the screen at all times", which seems like one of those rules that may take more time to implement than it saves in actual time.

Taken to the extreme, any such rule absolutely will. I certainly don't have that as a hard and fast rule. Or even as a guideline per se - it's more a faint but distant dream, or perhaps a feverish hallucination, a reminder of codebases past. But there's often plenty of cruft and low hanging fruit that can be fixed up in these codebases. Everyone has their "just one small change" to check in, so things build up and they don't jump to "okay, this is one line too many - time to refactor."

I practice pain driven development - when it's getting to be a pain to keep enough of something my head to do whatever sweeping changes or overhauls I might need to do, see if some pure or near-pure refactoring changes it. No expected behavior changes, often not even class or structural changes - often literally just regrouping code by topic and category via cut and paste. Horrific diffs, but low-risk checkins, and often a lot easier to reason about afterwards, and suddenly related code is often on the same screen.

(Although far from always.)

It sounds like we are on the same page. It's hard to tell with brief forum comments what people mean. I am just used to the reality that you _must_ switch contexts all the time, and it's _normal_ simply because the code bases are too big.

Yes, it's nice when things are close together, but in my case it's so rare as to not be point to consider trying to achieve, but more like a mental joke like "Hey, Bob. Come here and check this out! Two functions and template I am working on all fit on the same screen!" And Bob's like "wooooah, dude". And then we take a group selfie with my monitor and have a laugh, print out a poster of the selfie for the bulletin board for a few months, then throw it away during a cleanup and move on...

But to have people say "It's important to save whitespace so stuff can all be on the screen to avoid context switching" seems completely and utterly pointless.

I've always wonder why no C or Java code formatter tool allows me to use Lisp-style formatting. It's clearly superior, and the popularity of Python should prove that people are OK with not having closing braces on their own lines:

    void foo(int x) {
        if(x == 0) {
            bar() }}

After having seen a meme, I gave a teacher a project formatted like this:

    public class Main                                        {
        public static void main(String[] args)               {
            System.out.println("Hello world!")             ;}}

We had a good laugh. (that was fine with him, of course as long as it's a joke)

PS: getting back to the original topic, imo, formatting style should be project-wide rules set at the beginning or during refactoring. Don't get too hung up on style as long as it stays consistent.

I've written a bit of code formatted rather like this:

    void foo(int x)
    { if(x == 0)
      { bar(); } }

That is workable. I have adhered to it (mostly) in this Yacc grammar file: http://www.kylheku.com/cgit/txr/tree/parser.y

Just in the grammar; not in the supporting functions.

It's an attractive style for C statements embedded in another language, because they look more like capsules somehow.

> Same way you get joy deleting large swaths of code.

This is the true sign of a programmer's transcendence. Specifically the irrational joy of seeing net negative LOC diffs.

It's not about how much you can add. It's about how much you can remove without sacrificing correctness, functionality, and readability.

"The only good diff is a red diff"

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

This is my favorite research quote from a Civilization game (Civ IV, narrated by Leonard Nimoy). I use this as my mantra for all design-oriented aspects of my life now. Or... I try to. Sometimes it's hard not to want to add more haha.

FYI that quote is from Antoine de Saint-Exupry, author (and pilot) famous for "The Little Prince".

Do you know what the context of that quote is? I have used it as a sort of mantra specifically when programming, but I'm guessing it probably was intended for writing.

I don't, but it seems like it would find good use in both writing and aviation.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint_Exup%C3%A9ry has the preceding paragraphs. It’s about the design of airplanes.

A story about that from the early Apple team: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

I always tell my team that deleted code is the best code. Obviously less code is often more maintainable but there is also the element of being willing to throw away stuff you did earlier and not being attached to it.

I have a similar take on this, but expand it a bit by arguing that any line of code added – no matter how innocuous – is a liability. It's a line of code that has to be maintained, with all of the responsibilities that come with that. It may be a line that's responsible for adding more value than it costs, but it's still a liability. It won't add value forever, most likely, and when it stops it'll just be debt. It may be cheap debt, but debt nonetheless.

Deleted code on the other hand, is never a liability. The act of deleting it may be, but due diligence should ensure it is not.

Yes! Every addition carries some risk. The real world example I give to clients/managers of the risk of adding a feature is this:

Once I was using an industrial camera that had a mode that allowed it to mirror or “flip” the image output. Unfortunately, after running for a few hours, sometimes it would decide to flip the image on its own. Had that “flip” feature not existed, the bug could never have occurred.

The point isn’t that you shouldn’t add useful features, but that even easy to add features aren’t as “free” as they might seem and the risk of adding them should be recognized and weighed against their utility.

I remember teaching a guy about YAGNI - You Ain't Gonna Need It.

He would write helper functions that he thought would be useful before writing actual code and often ended up wasting time. Half the functions he wrote, he never actually used, but he'd still spend time writing them and unit tests for them.

Its interesting that University puts an emphasis on re usability, when in reality it often makes code a lot more difficult to understand.

Nothing irrational about feeling joy over what is hopefully more succinct and efficient code.

Yes, as long as you recognize where that line of obfuscation (LOO) is and stay just short of it.

It's really code tetris

Sometimes deleting code isn't enough and you have to do a rewrite. I once rewrote 2,650 lines of C as a seven line shell script. The previous programming team had written a data transfer program with its own implementation of ftp. I just used the one that was already on the computer.

The less code there is, there less opportunity there is for bugs.

> Same way comments are extra weight that should only be in public or algorithm/need to know areas.

This! Comments should convey programmer's intention and explain the thought process, not the code itself. Also, too many comments usually indicate that code should be refactored.

Same as we now use TL;DR

Exit or get out quick... make it readable... then the meat is left for those that want it below...

> Same way braces go on the end of the method/class name to reduce LOC.

Screw that. I've been writing code for 15 years, and Allman style braces make it so much easier to mentally parse code into blocks that they're worth every single LOC. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not working on an 80x24 terminal anymore.

Totally disagree with you.... it's funny though that I read LOC as "level of complexity" not "lines of code". I've been writing code for 30 years and I think it's jarring when the braces are on the next line, so much easier for me to parse that when it's on the same line. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

python fans are going like "what are braces?"

That's fine -- the Python folks have their own share of religious wars (starting with: tabs, or spaces?) :-)

Tabs, everyone can configure them however they want. :-)

I hate being able to configure stuff, I want other people to boss me around from anywhere in the world! Their opinion matters on my computer!

As a C++ programmer I can assure you, I know plenty of individuals with very strong opinions on tabs vs spaces debate.

And spaces sub factions/opinions on 2 vs 4 spaces.

The correct answer is whatever the project is already using, unless it is new and then you luckily get to choose.

Do they? All the Python folks I've ever seen express an opinion on style have said "follow PEP 8".

Unsurprisingly, PEP 8 does have a rule for tabs vs. spaces: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#tabs-or-spaces (spaces, of course)

As a data point, I don't follow (all of) PEP-8.

But tabs vs. spaces is indeed a bad analogy, because of course it's 4 spaces. ;-P

pycodestyle, the Python style checker, has a few checks disabled by default (because there's no consensus they're good ideas), and even some mutually exclusive ones:

https://pycodestyle.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro.html#erro...

I love Python but as a long time C programmer I can't understand the preference for spaces in PEP 8.

Tabs are semantic and only take one key press for movement back and forth and to delete.

If you see 1 tab you know it meant one indentation level. With spaces you have to think.

Plus with spaces you are stuck with 2/4/8 spacing(unless you reformat), with tabs you can configure your editor to your preferences.

> with tabs you can configure your editor to your preferences.

Configure 1 tab to be 4 spaces.

Sometimes it's easier to go with the flow. I like tabs for the reasons you mentioned, but fixed-width spaces are a bit better for some reasons too. IDE's can do the heavy lifting of re-formatting indentation levels and converting tabs to spaces for me, and it means if I cat a file on a remote server regardless of the bash tab width settings or if I'm in your code or the stdlib it will all make sense.

Tabs are semantic. But, when you start down that route, why not dictate record-separotor as replacement for closing brace/block etc?

> with tabs you can configure your editor to your preferences

Except that you can't because people using tabs will invariably start mixing tabs and spaces because they can't separate indentation from layout. So the code will be messed up unless you configure your editor to someone else's preferences. Also, I'm sure there is some obscure git setting to de-uglify tab users' diffs, but I'd rather not find out.

The PEP8 myth is quite funny. Almost all people I've met who were repeating "follow the pep8" like a mantra, have never read it. The main idea behind pep8 is: be consistent... however even the python library is not consistent. And it looks like no one cares. There was a great moment to make it nice and consistent - creating the python3, where many incompatible changes were introduced. Instead, the mess is like it was, and people repeat the mantra "follow pep8".

Before you say that I'm crazy... please, go and read pep8.

> please, go and read pep8

OK. What am I looking for?

These religious wars can largely be swept away with one simple, practical question: What is going to result in less noise in pull requests and the commit history, given that nowadays everyone uses a different editor with different configuration defaults, and is going to result in less time in pull requests squabbling over these kinds of formatting issues, given that nowadays everyone uses a different editor with different configuration defaults?

Tabs vs. Spaces has a fairly good answer that flows out of this way of looking at things. There is a counter-argument to that answer, but it is invalidated if you move toward conventions for argument lists and chained method calls that are also designed to limit noise in the source control system.

IMO, the argument about bracing also has a practical, non-religious answer once you start looking at your coding conventions this way.

Both!

The war is over. Py3 doesn't allow mixed spaces and tabs in the same file. You choose your side and never get to skirmish with the other one.

but biased fans of both would argue that opening and closing a block in the same indent level (allman-style) is closer to python.

The irony is that Python actually has open-braces, but they're spelled ":" instead of "{". And the syntax effectively enforces K&R style.

When I write Python I end every block with a "pass" statement so that emacs can auto-indent my code properly. The "pass" statement thus effectively becomes a close-brace. It drives Pythonistas into conniptions, but I never have to worry about reverse-engineering a block of code to figure out how to restore the proper block boundaries after a cut-and-paste has screwed up the indentation.

That's the bad part of not having braces.

If boundaries exist they need to be clear. One shouldn't have to count the tabs that make up the level of indentation.

Its already a challenge reading code. Counting invisible tabs makes it even worse.

Well, you don't have to literally count them, you use the spatial reasoning hardware built in to your retina and visual cortex to just see that this bit of code is further over to the right than that bit of code. But of course that only works for pieces of code that are small enough to fit in your field of view.

All code pieces should be small enough to fit in your field of view :)

Try to tell that to my current client :-(

On the other hand high counts of invisible tabs may be a hint that the code needs refactoring..

Python specific IDEs will smartly indent code upon copy and paste.

Sure, but if you somehow manage to screw up the indentation then no IDE can possibly restore it for you because the information needed to do it is lost. And there are a LOT of ways that indentation can get screwed up. If your code ever leaves the Python ecosystem (e.g. gets published on the web) then all bets are off because the entire digital world outside of the Python-sphere is built on the assumption that whitespace is fungible.

I don't know about that. I've never screwed up identaton so much that I couldn't correct it simply by selecting everything I just pasted and hitting tab a couple times in my IDE (PyCharm).

Similarly, copying code from StackOverflow, Github and random blogs have all worked without any issues.

So it can't be as easy as you imply.

What can I say? It happened to me a lot before I started using the pass trick.

How does an IDE know if a given line belongs in an if block or not?

It'll indent up to the most relevant valid block as possible, given your cursor at the moment. If you click within an if block, it'll indent into that if-block.

The indentation strategy also looks to produce syntactically valid code, so long as what you are pasting lacked indentation errors.

Nope. Just try insert code formatter with 8 spaces into code formatted with 4, or 2. IDE will make something that compiles, it doesn't mean that it works properly.

Just tried that---typing like mad in a wordpad, with 12 spaces of indentation, then copying into PyCharm and it worked.

Mixed spaces and tabs as a next go, and it worked too---converting the pasted tabs into spaces of my style.

Smart-tabbing is pretty smart.

Granted, I knew that so long as the indents were proper (i.e it compiles), that pasting at that point would give valid code but... I can't see how using braces would have been different. Just because it compiles, doesn't mean it works. I've pasted javascript incorrectly multiple time to produce valid, but incorrect for my needs code.

Enforces K&R style? I don't know what you mean...

    def foo(bar)\
    :
        if (bar > 5)\
        :
            return bar + 1;
        #
        else\
        :
            return bar - 1;
        #
    #

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry

That is clever. Ugly, yes. But clever.

    >>> from __future__ import braces
    SyntaxError: not a chance

Tell them braces are visual indicators of blocks of logic, enabling reasoning more easily on a multi-statement level.

Lambdas shouldn't be more than one line anyway.

I've done a number of informal tests on friends and family over the years regarding brace placement, and it's always been the same: For someone with NO experience programming (i.e. looking at what to them seems like a bunch of gobbletygoop - and what's a "text editor"?), adjacent braces make it appear more readable than same-line braces.

It's only people who cut their teeth on adjacent bracing that find it more readable.

Why optimize for the lowest common denominator?

I've seen both, and the reduction in vertical whitespace matters more to me than the readability to an untrained individual.

>Why optimize for the lowest common denominator?

You seem to be erroneously equating a coincidence with a preference.

I'll be flipping the point around by saying that if you are concerned about vertical whitespace reduction, you should probably look at the granularity of your files (debatable based on programming environment). Also we could be catering to the lowest common denominator by worrying about people with untrained symmetric sensibility.

Tip: Tilt your wide screen so you get more vertical real estate.

'I've done a number of informal tests on friends and family'

You should have a pretty cool family!

I've also been coding 30 years. I have to use same line at work, and I use next line in my (very large) side projects. Honestly, I don't know what the difference is.

> (very large) side projects

How big once you remove all the extra newlines?

LOL. This is the part of the Silicon Valley episode-bar-scene where the fight breaks out.

Thank god OC didn't mention "Just like you move from tabs to spaces."

Well, he shouldn't have, considering it's the other way around.. :-)

I never understood this part of the show. I'd think that the genius inventor of a breakthrough compression algorithm whose WHOLE POINT was high quality lossless compression would prefer spaces over tabs. After all, the compression algorithm can deal with it... without the issues that result from embedding hard tabs in a source file.

In last 20+ years I've changed the coding style many times, usually to fit the current team style. And in my experience it takes a few weeks for the brain to rewire to the new style. First you hate it, and then you get used to it, and then you're like: wow it's great. Then you switch the standards for a new project and again, the same steps. It's just a matter of habit...

Pragmatic programming has lost. If you aren't a zealot about being pedantic, just move into the old-folks home.

I enjoy zealous pedantry. I have strong personal opinions about something that I do a lot (especially the pedantic parts), but most of it is relatively lighthearted.

Not at all, I'd argue this whole Tabs/Spaces, bracket placement, single/double quote discussion should be getting killed by code formatters.

At the end of the day you can do whatever you want with the code you're writing, and some pre-commit hook can run go fmt/prettier/whatever and then it'll all get standardized.

I've become a very heavy proponent of code formatters (I added prettier to the entire team) and I truly believe that talk about code formatting will never really die off, but at the end of the day you can do whatever you want on your side but still have a standardized looking codebase, and that feels extremely liberating to me.

As a PS: If you are a diehard tab proponent/different bracket placement/whatever but your team formatter configuration uses spaces instead then you can also use code formatters to do spaces -> tabs locally, say, on file open. Once you commit your file your precommit falls back to the team configuration, which removes your tabs. Everyone is happy.

I think the person you are responding to was being sarcastic...

I'd say it's the opposite. Code formatters are winning. It's becoming increasingly trite to bikeshed over formatting when projects are using code formatters.

As Andy Lester recently tweeted (but said it wan't his): Should "bikeshedding" be hyphenated?

I should see if he remembers where he got it.

I don't know. If I remembered I'd have attributed it. I noted that it wasn't mine as the next-best-thing.

Well, i'm a pedant about being zealous, and i am afraid we are now doomed to war eternally.

Just give me an opinionated ${LANG}fmt utility to do it for me so I don't have to care and don't have to waste time arguing with other zealots. Let the tool be the zealot.

> Just give me an opinionated ${LANG}fmt utility to do it for me so I don't have to care and don't have to waste time arguing with other zealots. Let the tool be the zealot.

So totally this. I despise indenting with tabs with a passion, but when I heard gofmt did that I was actually pleased. There's no arguing with the official formatting utility: https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#formatting

This is exactly how I feel, as someone who has been coding for 22 years (professionally, closer to 32 if you count when I started hacking in BASIC and 6510 assembly on the C64).

I just defer to the code formatter. That way everything is consistent looking internally, which is all I care about. I couldn't care less whether the braces are on the same or a different line or other things like that outside of the fact that I do like internal consistency within projects.

All that aside, as soon as I saw the OP title I knew (via years of exposure to bikeshedding programmers) that this thread would end up having a ton of comments on it and wasn't surprised to see it was up to 500-something and still rapidly climbing.

I always adapt to the style used in the project I land. I can understand people liking one over another but to reach holy wars levels of disagreement about this kind of subject is something I don't get.

Same goes to spaces vs braces, editor wars, etc.

Downside: my projects are usually a bit of a mess with mixed indentation styles :D

I've actually evolved a hybrid style in my personal projects - next line for functions/classes, same line for blocks.

To me, it looks weird when functions don't have that extra line of space to set off their definition, but if/while/whatever aren't special enough to need that call out.

That said, the most important factor is simple consistency. In my person projects, I have the hybrid style. At work, I use same-line-only. If I'm on a project that has next-line, we all use next-line.

I think the Linux kernel style is similar. That was the first coding standard I somewhat adopted, but naturally have adapted to many others on different teams over time.

I think this style dates back to K&R C where you (maybe) declared argument types after the parens.

  int max(a, b) 
  double a, b;
  {
      return a > b ? a : b;
  }

I remember in my programming classes at school my teacher was always like: guys!there is space on the right! Use it!

PS: he coded at Hercules the graphic cards back in the day before he got into teaching.

What is "Hercules the graphic cards" (I only found GPU's when trying Google)

The Graphics Card (HGC) was essentially an MDA-compatible monochrome card with an added all-points-addressable graphics mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card

The level of complexity obviously doesn't change with a line break

Yeah, I agree with the list above except for that one. It always bugged me that idiomatic Javascript was like this. I guess Javascript just bugs me in general, though, too.

I'm with you on Allman style braces, prefer it and find them much easier to read.

As everyone else seems to use K&R I've just had a adapt over time :-(

A pro maintains consistency though so that is good.

I like One True Brace Style (1TBS) with an uncuddled 'else', which has else/else if on new-line with the break before it (similar to Stroustrup K&R without any same line properties, one thing per line, no bracket-less statements) and setup the standard that way if I am designing it, but do Allman or whatever variant the codebase uses if it already exists.

I’m with you on this, and all that other stuff you said. But really, on the topic of braces, brackets and parentheses, any decent editor will highlight the matching brace for you.

What's interesting to me is, anecdotally, the people I know who are the biggest K&R haters are people who started with K&R, then had to switch to Allman for a significant length of time, and then had to switch back to K&R.

That probably tells you more about the haters than the brace style. That was my career path, and while I've gotten used to reading Allman braces, I've heavily relied on tooling (especially Visual Studio) to auto-format my K&R (or 1TBS) braces for whatever project I'm in. Same thing with tabs/spaces.

There are lots of sane ways to read code, but consistency is key. It's hard to change muscle memory in how I type, though, so I think auto format is the way to go.

I agree. This is especially good when you have long method names and the method declaration might need more than one line. Having the opening brace on a new line clearly separates where the function/method declaration ends and the body begins.

As someone who started out with C# and learned Java later, let me tell you: This is nonsense. You can get used to both easily, but only one of them saves space.

The One True Brace Style:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/9954...

The name tells you that it won.

That link's favorite response actually refutes that brace style matters at all. No correlation with bug frequency detectable. So its all religion.

It's not "religion" if there's a technical reason to choose one method over another.

A later comment on the SO post described how K&R can have maintenance costs because when moving things around it's more difficult to tell where a statement ends, and can accidentally cause side effects.

Not reflected in the bug statistics, according to the post. So if the effects exists, its negligible.

>So if the effects exists, its negligible.

The only thing being considered was "bugs in the final code", not "time and effort in maintenance."

I wish this sentiment were expressed more often but also expressed less judgmentally and given more depth than sometimes occurs..

To say it is religion isn't to say "your preference is dumb". In my own code preferences I try to maintain a split between "have a reason I have confidence in" and "personal preference". And "easier to read" is almost always in the latter. (If you can say WHY, that is the actual reason, but your actual reason still has to be provable.)

Given the difficulty of finding good research and the inherent difficulty of the research (if familiarity is a big component to preference, and a proven ability to mentally parse code required to judge, then good luck running a control group) I have a lot of items I have confidence in being provable without having actual proof, but the lengthy preference list also means I'm willing to accept that each of those can switch columns.

Way too many of our "easier to read" defenses are really "it is easier to read because I'm familiar with it. I personally think camelCase is terrible - language has spaces for reasons! - but there is no denying that it is very common and that the vast majority of coders learned it first, an unfortunate self perpetuating cycle.

Nonetheless, shown research that said I was wrong (assuming said research had taken familiarity into account) I would change my stance rather than dig in my heels...even if that change were to only add "but that's just me" to the end of it.

I agree. I'm not looking to increase code density. I leave empty lines between logical sections within functions to allow the code "breathe". It helps me parse my own code.

for a vi user, visually selecting a block to its matching end for cutting/pasting is the equivalent of coding photoshop

v%y works well enough, seems like.

I used Python enough that braces are completely meaningless to me in languages with them (ie, everyone else). Indentation is my mental delineation of code blocks. I just have to write these {} things all over the place because every other language is a gramatically bloated mess.

The advent of automatic code formatting (and Python pioneered this in many ways with pep8, but even huge C++ projects are realizing the value in clang-format, clazy, etc) put the nail in the coffin of arguments against whitespace blocking. You can have an enforced uniform style throughout a project now, with no ambiguity, and in such contexts using whitespace as a block delimiter also has no ambiguity. It just takes advantage of formatting already being done to avoid redundant glyph use.

Let's see. The Unix indent utility was what, mid-1980s? GNU indent came out in 1989. Python was released in the mid-1980s. PEP-8 was released in 2001.

Yup, Python clearly pioneered automatic code formatting. Nobody had done it before them...

Lisp pretty printing was available in February 1973 (http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/AIM-27...).

That document states Bill Gosper wrote one of the first pretty printers, but doesn’t give a date for it.

I would think it is much older, as writing a simple lisp pretty-printer is easy and reading lisp without autoformatting is “less than ideal”.

> I just have to write these {} things all over the place because every other language is a gramatically bloated mess.

In what way are context-free languages "a grammatically bloated mess?" Whitespace delimited languages like Python have context-sensitive grammars. Now that is a mess.

Most bracket languages aren't strictly context-free either (the Dangling else problem [1] alone somewhat guarantees that most programming languages are not strict, unambiguous CFGs in a mathematic sense). There's no right/wrong/superiority in context-free versus context-sensitive, they are tools in the toolbox and not really "levels in a superiority hierarchy".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_else

> There's no right/wrong/superiority in context-free versus context-sensitive

Dismissing the whole field of formal language theory with that statement is so bogus, it "is not even wrong." There are tools and techniques for parsing context-free languages that are impossible with context-sensitive languages. Parser generators, structured editing, metacompilers, composable grammars; those are all impossible with context-sensitive languages. Context-free languages are faster to parse, easier to write compilers/interpreters for, and much easier to write tooling for (editors, linters, etc).

Ambiguous context-free grammars are a very different thing from context-sensitive grammars. You can't point to the former and say "so whitespace sensitivity is ok."

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm pointing out the boundaries are fuzzier than hard cut-offs and it's weird to assign moral superiority to one side of the grass or the other. Most parser generators/composable grammar tools, etc, have tools for dealing with context sensitive sections of a language, just as they use regular expressions for tokenizing and allow regular language sub-languages.

I can point to ambiguous context-free grammars and say whitespace sensitivity is ok, because the tools to fix the one are often the same to fix the other. (Ambiguous context-free grammars do turn out to make context sensitive languages, because it's a blurry line in the grass between them.)

Whitespace sensitivity is one of the easier context sensitivity challenges to embed as a sub-language in an otherwise (mostly) context-free language, because you can represent it entirely as pseudo tokens from a simply modified lexing phase in a traditional CFG parser. Python is an easy and clear proof, as that is exactly what it did (Python is also not purely a CFG after whitespace tokenization because of also how it handles the dangling else, but we've already mentioned those weeds).

Even if you don't find the boundaries between the classes of languages fuzzy (and Parser Combinators and PEG grammars have a lot to say here), context-sensitive languages are a tool in a growing toolbelt, not a "complex" evil to be demonized.

> it's weird to assign moral superiority to one side of the grass or the other

Algorithmic complexity is not "moral superiority." The whole point of formal language theory is to show how the different languages differ in terms of how difficult they are to work with.

> just as they use regular expressions for tokenizing and allow regular language sub-languages

That is because regular languages are a subset of context-free languages. There is nothing special to "allow" there.

> I can point to ambiguous context-free grammars and say whitespace sensitivity is ok, because the tools to fix the one are often the same to fix the other.

No they are not. Precedence rules and extra lookahead will help with ambiguous context-free grammars but not with context-sensitive ones. There is also a whole class of algorithms, such as GLR, specialized to handle ambiguous CFGs efficiently.

> Whitespace sensitivity is one of the easier context sensitivity challenges to embed as a sub-language in an otherwise (mostly) context-free language, because you can represent it entirely as pseudo tokens from a simply modified lexing phase in a traditional CFG parser.

That statement is nonsense. There is no way to "embed" a context-sensitive language in a CFG. What you are saying is that it is "easy" to make a whole context-sensitive parser just to produce a context-free language so you can pass that to another CFG parser. That is not "easy," that is bolting crap onto other crap.

> Algorithmic complexity is not "moral superiority." The whole point of formal language theory is to show how the different languages differ in terms of how difficult they are to work with.

Chomsky's hierarchy was designed for production from categories of languages. That it doubles as a useful rule of thumb for algorithmic complexity in parsing is a fascinating dualism in mathematics. That those same rules of thumb reflect basic automaton abstractions is even more fascinating. This is also where it seems the clearest analogy lies to why I find your arguments to "complexity" so useless. It sounds to me like a strange steampunk form of the "640k is all anyone will ever need" fallacy: "why use Turing machines when Pushdown automatons will do just fine?"

Yes, there are a lot of great tools for working with CFGs, just as we've pushed Regular Expressions far past the boundaries of formal Regular Languages, we push these same tools past the boundaries of formal CFGs. We aren't actually constrained by the limits of only using Deterministic Finite Automata or Pushdown Automata in our programming, we have vast Church-Turing–level state machines at our power completely and easily capable of tracking contexts/states.

The "context" in a whitespace-sensitive language is "how many spaces have you seen recently?". This is not a hard question, this is not some mystical "context sensitivity" that needs an entire "context-sensitive language parser". It's a handful of counters. That is the very definition of easy, that's the built-in basics of your average Church-Turing machine, keep a number on the tape and update it as necessary.

Python's specification for the language defines the language in a CFG BNF just as the majority of brackets languages. The one concession to its whitespace sensitivity is that it expects from its lexer INDENT and DEDENT tokens. Those tokens are added simply by counting whitespace between lines, seeing if there is a < or > relationship. After those tokens are in the stream (along with the rest of the tokens defined in their associated (Mostly) Regular Languages) it is parsed by whatever CFG automaton/algorithm the Python team wants (LR, GLR, LALR, PEG, etc). That's not "bolting crap onto other crap" by most stretches of the imagination, that's using a pretty simple stack of tools that any programmer should be able to (re-)build, and not one at all more complicated than (and in fact built entirely inside) the classic tokenizer/lexer feeding a parser stack.

> This is also where it seems the clearest analogy lies to why I find your arguments to "complexity" so useless.

Honestly, from everything you have posted so far, I really get the impression that you have never worked on programming language parsing, or with large code bases. The difference in algorithmic complexity is not "useless," it is the difference between being able to compile millions of lines of code in a few seconds on modest hardware, and needing a cluster just to get your builds done:

https://community.embarcadero.com/blogs/entry/compiling-a-mi...

Not saying algorithmic complexity is useless, only that it is a starting point in a discussion, not the end of the discussion. I've repeatedly used the analogy "tools in the toolbelt" as my return point in the discussion, so maybe you are missing plenty of my actual words in your "impression" that swings wildly toward an ad hominem attack.

If we want to fight anecdote for anecdote, I've certainly seen millions of lines of code of Python analyzed ("compiled") in seconds on modest hardware, rather than a cluster. Differences there are more in the static typing versus dynamic typing, and strongly compiled versus weakly compiled/primarily interpreted there. Maybe a better anecdote is millions of lines of Haskell? Seen that too. Whitespace-sensitive languages scale just fine.

I can understand it if you want to admit that you just don't like whitespace-sensitive languages for personal reasons, but there aren't very good technical reasons and you seem unhappy with my explanations of why that is the case. I'm not sure how much more I can try to explain it, and given you seem close to resorting to personal attacks I'm afraid this is likely where the conversation ends.

I see it the same way. It offers symmetry. The method name can be as long or short. At least the start of the code block and the end is easily visible since the indentation level remains same. Gives a sense of Python readability.

Huh? My emacs auto-indents both styles in exactly the same way:

    void foo() {
      code...;
    }
    
    void foo()
    {
      code...;
    }

The start of the code block is signified by the opening brace, which starts at the end of the method name in the first case, hence breaking symmetry.

To my eye, the start of the code block is signified by the indentation, i.e.:

    stuffstuffstuff....
      stuffstuffstuff...

So I read C and Python (and Lisp) code the same way. A naked open brace looks jarring and ugly to me. It also increases the separation of other related parts of the code, i.e.

    if (...) {
      while(...) {
        do(...) {

    if (...)
    {
      while(...) {
      {
        do(...) {

The latter seems unnecessarily wasteful to me.

K&R isn't that terrible when code is neat and clean, but it starts to have trouble IMO particularly when declarations or conditions wrap to multiple lines. Compare the following examples... I personally have to stop and read the code to find the blocks with K&R braces, vs being able to see them at a glance with Allman.

    void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
        YetAnotherLongParamType param3) {
        if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 && 
            longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3) {
            // do stuff
        }
    }
    
    void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
        YetAnotherLongParamType param3) 
    {
        if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 && 
            longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3) 
        {
            // do stuff
        }
    }

Emacs autoindent to the rescue:

    void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
                          YetAnotherLongParamType param3) {
      if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
          longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3) {
        // do stuff
      }
    }

IME the more complex your code formatting, the less likely people are to do it, especially after your code has been touched by dozens of different people with a dozen different editors.

This is why emacs is the One True Editor ;-)

I treat the parentheses the same way I treat the braces:

    void MyLongMethodName(
        SomeLongParamType param1,
        SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
        YetAnotherLongParamType param3
    ) {
        if (
            longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
            longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3
        ) {
            // do stuff
        }
    }

I also make liberal use of temporary variables:

    void MyLongMethodName(
        SomeLongParamType param1,
        SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
        YetAnotherLongParamType param3
    ) {
        auto condition1 = longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2;
        auto condition2 = longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3;
        if (condition1 && condition2) {
            // do stuff
        }
    }

Vertical space is allocated to the actual parameters and conditions, and the extra syntax-only lines exist only to separate chunks. This works well with "paragraphs":

    void MyLongMethodName(
        SomeLongParamType param1,
        SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
        YetAnotherLongParamType param3
    ) {
        auto condition1 = longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2;
        auto condition2 = longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3;
        if (condition1 && condition2) {
            // do stuff
        }

        auto someData = buildSomeData();
        doSomethingWith(someData);
        while (someCondition) {
            // loop
        }

        finishUp();
        return someData;
    }

Great for you. I guess you never have to share your code with other people; especially those who aren't using emacs.

I agree with you 100%. It's all about being able to skim through code to find what you want and understand structure quickly.

Allman is great for this. Though I'm a Whitesmiths guy, myself. Still, same idea.

/36 years of commercial coding here.

I don't work on an 80/24 terminal either, but I find that if there's too much text on the screen at a time, my eyes glaze over and don't read it all. So I work with larger fonts and use a terser style with a 40-line rule for functions that aren't switch statements.

I agree! The secret to code readability isn't squeezing out all whitespace, vertical or horizontal.

Ok. I've been writing code for 25+ years, and disagree.

I'm often coding on a server that has 4-6 tmux windows along with another terminal window for my local machine. I rarely have only one wall of text open, so I effectively work on mini-terminals often.

NoooOoooooOOOooooOOOooo! I hate Allman braces! My hatred burns with the fire of a thousand suns!

> I'm not working on an 80x24 terminal anymore.

Even with 80x24 (don't ask), I fully agree with Allman style braces.

> Same way comments are extra weight that should only be in public or algorithm/need to know areas.

Unless you are writing completely brilliant code your future self will hate you if you skimp on comments. Also self-documenting code is great, but intentions are not always clear to another person trying to figure out your code.

Comments are not documentation.

Documentation explains HOW to use a thing. Good comments explain WHY a thing is strange. Bad comments explain WHAT a thing does and must be made redundant by extracting and naming the thing.

> Comments are not documentation.

Probably overly generalized to be pithy, but no.

Comments are by very definition documentation, which can and should cover of all of the what/why/who/how/where.

Documentation that occasionally explains how to use code can actually be useful!

Unless you actually get around to writing a user manual (which gets out of date), please do consider documenting how something should be used, particularly in libraries.

As a Perl developer i mean this literally and transfer it to other languages as well. POD (or a block comment above a function) describes the API and use cases of the function. Inline comments inside the function exist only to provide explanation for the next maintainer when they see a strange construct. Any other type of comment needs to be refactored.

Also, i never said documentation isn't useful. HOW and WHY are useful. WHAT in documentation and comments isn't because it should be in the variable/function/method/class/instance name.

(Who/Where/When are covered by the source repository and the blame function.)

Only "brilliant" code ends up needing comments.

Plain code organized into understandable methods (usually no more than half a page of code), with good naming for variables & method names reduces the need for comments.

It's also easier to scan/read code if there's a minimum of comments in the way.

There is a ton of code that only exists because of issues elsewhere in the code. This is the opposite of brilliant code: these are the dirty patchworks, the hacks glueing the whole thing together. Yet often these hacks are necessary, at least until some bug is fixed elsewhere.

Clear, self-documenting code is great but it can't capture that holistic insight into what the whole program is doing. It can't capture context, because the whole point of clean refactored code is to be as context-free as possible.

Completely agreed. Put another way: the sentiment that code documents itself is only possible in purely logical systems with no edge cases or surprising consequences.

As an example, our code base has a comment which refers to our internal issue tracker which itself refers to this HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9048947

It's also only possible if the code is thought of as a text and is proofread/edited rigorously for reading. My process is 1) write the code quickly- add comments 2) revise for clarity and efficiency (usually modularity), remove comments as confidence allows. This is where I might get the variable and method names correct for self-documenting code. Usually it takes several passes. But most often, "good enough is good enough" and I leave comments in. Just in case.

> which itself refers to this HN comment

I was secretly hoping you actually meant your own comment, creating a recursive loop. But a surprise John Nagle is even better

Also, any non-trivial software project is going to end up needing workarounds for bugs in other software. And you really need to document those. Because otherwise someone is going to remove that second refresh() statement, not knowing that this works around a bug in OS version xyz.

Basically, "IE8 fix"-comments

> There is a ton of code that only exists because of issues elsewhere in the code.

Or sometimes, not even that: issues elsewhere in the system, possibly completely outside of your control (e.g. the language/framework/library you're using, the OS, business requirements, etc).

I agree with this. When dealing with a modern programming language, it's just easier to name your functions and variables in such as way that they're readable. It makes sense to document public functions using the language's documentation syntax, if you're writing an API.

I look back at a lot of my old code and even without comments, it's easy to follow the logic because I used sensible names and constructs.

I have the exact opposite experience. If you find yourself annotating your variables and methods with extra adjectives and nouns, your code isn't simple enough. Those explanations go in code comments.

Often it means you can refactor it so that there is only one of any "thing" so there is no need to clarify which version or role this "fooBarThing" is serving to disambiguate it from the other "bazBarThing".

Functional composition and well structured data is the key to this. It's basically halfway to point-free style.

The variable name can just be fooBar, and bazBar, and organized/namespaced such that you could have Thing.fooBar and Thing.bazBar (assuming you want those exposed to the rest of the application).

Readable variable names doesn't mean wordy names. I would avoid using more than 2 words in a variable name.

Good, clear code, with nice names and such shows what the code is doing and how it's doing it. It doesn't tell you anything about why it's being done, or the context of the function within the code.

You're lucky if you're dealing with code that's either small enough or simple enough not to need the added context...or if you only need to read your old code.

> Only "brilliant" code ends up needing comments.

Code shows what is being done. Comments should explain why it's being done.

That's a really nice approach. Thanks for sharing, I might borrow it sometime!

Code shows how it is being done. Comments should explain what is being done.

In some cases it seems that the name of a function takes care of the "what".

Sometimes requirements or quircks of third party library need a comment.

Sometimes things should be commented. Like, for example, every time I have to do pointer arithmetic, I make a comment explaining why, because pointer arithmetic is opaque and error prone.

I find the better my types are, the less I need to explain. Canonical morphisms generally don't need comments.

> Only "brilliant" code ends up needing comments.

Often you have horrible complexity imposed on you from outside -- business rules you're implementing, etc, which are _not simple_. You can write code that encapsulates a lot of that, and even refactor it so you can see _what_ the code is doing pretty easily ... but it's often _very_ valuable to document in a code comment (docstring, JSdoc, etc) WHY it's like that.

Arguably, the comment is not to explain the code, in this case, but rather to explain the twisted bureaucratic logic you're having to implement, so maybe that still counts as "brilliant" code. ;)

For an alternate perspective you might find persuasive, I recommend you read through the following slide deck: http://www.sqlite.org/talks/wroclaw-20090310.pdf. (Relevant part starts on slide 80, but I recommend you start from the beginning for full context.)

For glue/app/ux code that's mostly autocompleted, sure. But for domain-specific, algorithmic, magic-formula type stuff, comments are sanity made manifest.

IME it's the "completely brilliant" code that your future self will hate you for, and needs the most comments.

Moreover, when the weight of those comments trends towards 50% being justifications for why you did it that way, it's an excellent sign that your code has gone from "brilliant" to "super-genius", as in "Wile E. Coyote, Super-Genius".

"Completely dumb" code can be read by your future self without comments. Even, sometimes, by other people!

Sometimes, I have seen (and, on at least one occasion, written) code that was brilliant in its simplicity. Very clever, but at the same time completely obvious. (In the sense that one needed to be clever to come up with it, but it was easy to understand if somebody showed it to you.)

But for the general case, I do wholeheartedly agree with you.

The problem with this is maintaining comments. If you are using a compiled language or even linting, code that is part of the codebased is checked by a machine at least in a cursory way and the code that is there is what runs. The comments are not guaranteed in any way to pertain to the code that is in the repo and there is not a way for a computer to check the meaning of the comment to make sure that it was updated to match the code. Comments can get out of date, which may make them do the opposite of what they are intended for.

> The problem with this is maintaining comments.

That's like saying "the problem with healthcare is that it costs money". Of course comments can get out of date. The solution isn't to throw them out!

There's no alternative for healthcare.

There's alternative to in-code comments answering the question "why" - it's commit messages. They can't be out of date.

But commit messages can easily get plowed under in some annoying "reformatted, I hate tabs/spaces" commit. I do like to see some "why" sprinkled in here and there that will survive those accidents. But I will nonetheless prefer blame output if it is still meaningful. Also, I enjoy a commit that removes redundant comments almost as much as one that removes redundant code.

You can either pass a commit id to git blame to see changes before the reformat happend or you can use git log like this:

git log -L0,10:file.txt

What? So in my case I'm supposed to browse literally millions of commit messages in order to understand the code?

"The problem with installing a roof on your house is one day it can be blown off."

A while back I tried to create a commenting system that explicitly tied comments to blocks of code. The idea was that if you tried to change the code without also changing the comment, or vis versa, a git pre-commit hook would yell at you. Unfortunately it wound up being less tractable than I anticipated, but I think the basic idea has some promise.

That's what code reviews are for, to help developers check each other for things that cannot be automatically linted.

Comments that answer "what" are redundant. Choose your identifiers better.

Write good commit messages and comments that answer "why" are redundant too. Commit messages by their nature refer to the exact code that they refered to when they were written. Comments answering "why" after a few years are misleading anyway, because code changed around them.

Commenting public api etc is obvious, and most people do it.

When you read through a part of your system that you've either never seen before or have forgotten how it works, do you also read all commit messages for all of that code? I'm asking because that's the only way I can imagine one can learn about the edge cases and surprising consequences in non-trivial systems if you have a rule about not using comments to explain them.

No, I do a git blame, and see all the relevant commit messages.

If there's not 1 line of code from that commit remaining why is it relevant?

If something looks weird still - I go back to the commit that created this part of code and git blame that. I don't remember a case where I had to do 2 steps like that.

BTW we have a rule of putting JIRA ticket numbers in commits, that makes it even easier to find out. You can see the whole discussion that resulted in the code you try to understand, test cases that you don't want to break with your new changes, etc.

>No, I do a git blame, and see all the relevant commit messages.

sounds great until there's a refactor (including moving code around), then all the "comments" get buried.

It's a bit humorous that often the same people who insist the code should be enough documentation follow that up by clarifying that git, of course, supplies the rest.

So something entirely outside the codebase, which may or may not be available to the person who needs the information, and which may or may not need to be extensively searched through years of history to find the relevant commit message, which may or may not be sufficient to explain the code... is better than having a comment in the code.

Git blame is great. But having to look at all commit messages over, say, a few hundred lines of code just to know about standard pitfalls does not sound efficient. Edge cases are not just in the places where code is obviously doing something odd. Sometimes they hide in seemingly normal looking code - the kind of code you may not think it's worth diving into the commit history for.

> your future self will hate you if you skimp on comments.

Likewise, your future self will hate you when comments fall out of sync with the code.

If the code is readable you don't need much in the way of comments.

Code explains what the program does. Comments explain why a program does what it does. Code and comments are orthogonal, not coincident.

My rule of thumb is, if I have to ask a question during a code review, the answer needs to be in a code comment.

If I feel the need to add a comment to explain what I'm doing and why, then I usually take a step back and rethink what I'm doing and why. That urge tells me I'm trying to be too clever and that I need to simplify. I still add comments when I need them, but it's a rarity these days. Usually when I'm either on a time crunch or I can't think of a better way to do whatever it is I'm doing.

I understand that as "document every class/module/public method with javadoc/pydoc/whatever and also explain the (few!) counter-intuitive bits of your code with inline comments. (You might find those deep within an algorithm, but usually not in plumbing or business logic code)."

That should leave you with a solid documentation of your application's components and APIs and a small amount of inline comments.

If you find you have more comments, either your code should be simplified or you're commenting trivialities.

As everything, it's a guideline with exceptions, not an absolute rule.

Source control, eg the "comment" when committing code can also be used for comments.

> Unless you are writing completely brilliant code your future self will hate you if you skimp on comments.

The vast majority of comments I usually see can be rolled into variable names or function names. If you're writing lots of comments, that's a good indication your code is hard to understand, your variables are badly named and your functions are too long in my opinion. I think people that say "your code is bad if you don't have any comments" have things backwards personally.

Pretty much the only time I use comments is when I'm forced to write weird code to workaround an API bug, to explain an unintuitive optimisation or to give high-level architecture documentation.

I've honestly returned to code I've written myself maybe 5 years later and rarely had an issue that would have been helped with more comments.

This is like the 10 commandments. Good ideas mixed with stuff that is a matter of taste :)

If it was this simple we wouldn't be still arguing about coding styles decades after they were invented. I know few old programmers that I respect very much, and they don't agree about the perfect coding style, not even simple stuff, like braces in separate lines or not.

If it was this simple we wouldn't be still arguing about coding styles decades after they were invented.

Money quote.

> If it was this simple we wouldn't be still arguing about coding styles decades after they were invented.

I disagree with the logic in this sentence. New coding styles are invented all the time. The guard statements in the article were only formalized in the late 90s, for example. These arguments about coding styles "decades after they were invented" are the only way we know which work and which don't.

It's not a matter of taste. It's how you separate the wheat from the chaff. Except for the brackets one. ;)

Late 90s were 2 decades ago :)

Guards were brand new in the 90s. Unless you're going to argue programming started in the 90s, your point is irrelevant.

"Same way comments are extra weight that should only be in public or algorithm/need to know areas.

" Best thing I learned about commenting is: Comment WHY you are doing it... not WHAT. Code is the WHAT... Comment is the WHY

If you feel the need to specify in a comment that the code does some potentially unexpected thing or that the way it does what it does has certain consequences, that's fine. And obviously the comment/doc of a function/class/whatever should say what it does if it's not 100% obvious and unambiguous from the name. I don't think this kind of rule is really helpful. Just comment if you feel a comment is needed, and if other people who interact with your code think you have too many or too few comments then you can adjust from there.

People do need to be taught this. I inherited a script from a co-worker who had left. My team leader had gone over it and commented it for me.

    # open file 
    with open(my_file, "rb") as binary_file:
       binary_file.seek(8)

No mention of what was at byte 8, or what the hell it was doing, but he commented the only obvious part of the code.

I've been coding about 20 years now, and I've seen all of these changes in my own coding style.

For whatever it's worth, I insisted on single return for a long time when I was an intermediate programmer. 30 years in, I strongly prefer return early (as well as continue early in loops) and I cannot go back. The immensely reduced indentation is marvelous. Having that 'happy path' consolidated is more readable.

I am on board with returning at the beginning while checking arguments. But I hate it when code returns somewhere in the middle for some reason. I have spent countless hours debugging a problem with unexpected behavior only to find a return statement in the middle of a huge block to code.

That's because the return statement is a kind of goto statement. Goto-like statements reduce the value of structured programming. In a pure structured program, each statement sequence is either completely executed or not executed. There are also pure structured languages, like Oberon, which doesn't allow impurely structured programs.

When return is used in the middle of a complex code sequence I much prefer a goto so at least I know where all paths exit.

I find it interesting how most of the comments about return early are based on experience.

I had the same thing happen about 10 years in. I just got sick of the extra coding and long indented blocks. And just switched over one day.

Why is this not taught from day one?

The problem is that for any rule you come up with there are cases where that rule is just too rigid and too inflexible.

There are times where early return makes a ton of sense. Usually that's the case when you can derive the return value from a shallow interpretation of some input values (i.e. check preconditions) but still require more complex processing for other input values. In that case, return early, but constrain the rest of the method to one return point.

On the flip-side, there are cases where an early return makes it incredibly hard to reason about the function. This usually occurs in dense, nested conditional logic. In those cases, I found sticking to rule that a return value should be initialized once and only once, and return from a single point, beneficial in even reasoning about the problem.

Can't that be taught as well? (both rules, and exceptions to rules?)

Sure.

But as a novice youd should adhere to rules. As you gain experience you learn when to break them.

I think you read my comment backwards.

I think the "rule" should be "exit early", and the exception "multi-indent exit later".

I sold my first program aged 15 and I'm 53 now. My experience is that the benefit of early return is to keep indentation to a minimum. To me, every time code indents it is a "context switch".

Having said that, early return should be for error/ignore situations - there should only be one return for a result and that should be at the very end of the function.

Habits based on what was fastest on slow machines where every cycle mattered and compilers weren’t as good at optimizing, I’d bet.

I'd like to believe that this is a result of the concept of functions being first taught in the context of mathematics. Since there's no concept of flow control in mathematical functions, their entire purpose boils down to "Given parameters, do processing, return value".

We were taught "one entry, one exit".

I now think of the early part of a function as a filter for bad params, invalid state & whatnot, and return as early as possible.

Code just feels less complex that way.

> Programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early, [..]

I agree with all your other points and I‘d even agree if you wrote return early makes code more readable but not that it‘s something experienced programmers do.

Programming is still - to some degree - resource management. Inexperienced devs often miss that fact, because they are focused on memory management and believe they can rely on the garbage collector for clean-up. In real projects you quickly end up managing file descriptors, sockets, handles, GUI resources, etc. Early return is terrible for that, because your coding style starts to depend on the kind of resource to manage.

That‘s why the more experienced folks end up writing single exit point code sooner or later.

EDIT: I‘m not arguing that early return and proper resource management are incompatible, just that most experienced programmers have often been burnt enought to avoid it.

That's one of the reasons I love RAII; all resources, memory and otherwise, are treated the same.

it's not just about in app resources. This could also affect external resources.. like not cleaning up temporary files because a future maintainer returned early and left some critical data behind.

RAII can handle such resources, and good use of RAII does handle such resources. Languages without time-deterministic GC even tend to add extra language constructs to aid this, such as `using` in C# and Java (7?) with its new `try` block.

That‘s what I was thinking when writing my edit. The somewhat ironic thing is that C++ people could use early exits safely, but often don’t, while Java folks typically write early exit code when they really shouldn’t.

Downside is, now your cleanup code is spilled all over the codebase. And where it's implemented it lacks often the necessary context (from the location of use). So, it's often wrong or incomplete, or suffers from the type-for-single-usage syndrome.

Yes, RAII works for the casual std::vector, but it's not a maintainable solution for general resources.

It's right next to the create code, not 'spilled all over the codebase'. And if you really want different behavior on destruction (which is _really_ rare IMO), you can pass a destruction strategy at object construction. If you don't know how you want to destroy something when you construct it, you need to take a step back and reexamine your architecture.

True, for those who don't agree, read about rule-of-zero for some expansions on this. If you have to write the same type of clean up code in multiple destructors you are doing it wrong, wrap that resource in a class that has the responsibility of managing that type of resource and forget about the destructors elsewhere.

And the create code is spilled over the codebase, just as well :-). It's not where actual work is done. This approach of encapsulating functionality in a class may work in some instances such as std::vector but more often than not it's just a lot of (typical OOP) boilerplate for things that you do only once in a codebase anyway. Giving one-off things a type and a name and decoupling them from normal control flow (ripping them out of context) makes things just harder to understand. Better just make them global data, maybe even define the initialization/cleanup routines for that global data in-line with the rest of the control flow.

I mean, having global resource managers is orthogonal to generating the events that cause resource destruction. And you're not 'ripping them out of context's, since the guard objects are still there where you would be doing the resource management manually.

EDIT: and I was the lead for a high availability C++ RTOS. I know that not all patterns fit for writing quality, available code. This fits remarkably well though. Even though we were totally async and didn't rely on the stack for context lifetimes.

> And you're not 'ripping them out of context's, since the guard objects are still there where you would be doing the resource management manually.

The guard object is there (e.g. "on the stack") but the destructor is not defined in-line but in a separate class method definition. Classes have always that implicit ideal of being "isolated". This is wishful thinking, of course. In the end all the parts of the code need to contribute to the program. That's why OOP codebases often end up as a terrible mess. Classes can't decide if they want to be isolated or involved. The compromise is all this terrible implicit state. (do you know the quote by Joe Armstrong about the banana, monkey and jungle?)

Guard objects dont have to be on the stack. They work beautifully inside a context object that's registered with global manager if you're in an async codebase. std::move is a glourious thing.

Oh common. This might be true for a very specific type of codebase, but it isn't true for programming in general. If I'm coding a library of standard statistical functions I'm exiting early. If I'm coding a Rails webapp I'm exiting early. If I'm coding a shell script, even one used on tens of thousands of servers, I'm exiting early.

The resource almost all programmers are managing is the resource of human time. Human time to code the project, human time to review the code, human time to alter the code after the fact, human time to port the code to different environments. If you're writing code to run AI at Google then fine, you're managing resources at a level where performance starts to hit limits that warrant a style change, but generally speaking you know that ahead of time and you choose tools to handle a project of the right scope, but generally speaking exiting early isn't impacting your code performance. Big O mistakes are.

I guess I would agree with the concept of managing “human time”, but I believe you are focusing on the wrong human. The developer will certainly spend a lot of time writing and maintaining a code base, but that’s minuscule compared to the time spent by the end user. What software design principles will save the user the most “human time”?

Cleaning up resources after use is not a question of performance, it is a question of correctness.

Choosing an environment that requires you to clean up resources instead of handling it for you is mostly a question of performance.

Not really, inlined RAII is just as fast as doing it yourself.

Don't forget the human time to debug the code (especially the rare or only-happens-under-load issues, which can be related to resource exhaustion, among other things).

Also, some of your examples (like altering or reviewing code) can become easier and faster if resource management is a first-class citizen in your code base or language (i.e. is either more explicit in the code, and you know to look for it and manage it, or it is somehow taken care of automatically by your language, so you would have a hard time forgetting it, even if it is handled implicitly).

Yeah that is true.

I have doubts about whether "real" projects generally have these kinds of concerns. But even if they do, you can clean them up in a `finally`, or your language's equivalent.

Most languages with try/catch/finally don't have checked exceptions, so handling resource management in the those schemes is really brittle.

`finally`/RAII doesn’t depend on checked exceptions. It always runs (short of something that aborts the program without unwinding the call stack; and in those cases single-exit won’t save you).

Mixing finally and RAII into the same category doesn't really make sense here.

And I'm not saying that finally depends on checked exceptions, I'm saying that pattern is very brittle. You change lower code to throw a new exception, and you change the above code to catch it like you're supposed to, but now the middle code has no idea that there's this new exception and leaks resources. So you end up either having brittle code who's correctness depends on implicit choices of the code around it, or you're wrapping pretty much all function bodies with try-catch-finally-rethrow.

I find it a good rule of thumb to allocate and deallocate a resource at the same level in my design, and to maintain any associated handle at that level as well. I have encountered few situations where this didn’t work well, and almost all of them arose because an external module introduced some form of unavoidable asymmetry at its interface.

If you’re able to follow that pattern then safe handling of unusual control flows tends to follow naturally. You just adopt whatever mechanism your language provides for scheduling the code to clean up and release resources at the same time as you allocate those resources. Almost all mainstream languages at a higher level than C provide a suitable mechanism today: RAII, some variation of `with` or `using` block, try-finally, Lispy macros, Haskelly monad infrastructure, etc.

That way, the only places you need to write any extra logic are the layers where you allocate/deallocate and possibly lower layers that manage side effects on those resources in the unusual case that they require a specific form of recovery beyond the default behaviour in the event of aborting early.

Hopefully if you do have to work at low level like C or assembly language and you’re using forms of control flow that could bypass clean-up logic then you already have at least some coding standards established for how to manage resources safely as well.

`finally` doesn't depend on catching any particular errors. If control flow exits its block for any reason, then the `finally` block executes.

> middle code has no idea that there's this new exception and leaks resources

You misunderstand how `finally` works. The whole point is that it runs regardless of exception type. So the resulting code in the middle layer doesn’t need to know anything about the code it calls, and doesn’t leak resources, even when calling or called code changes: It’s not brittle.

> or you're wrapping pretty much all function bodies with try-catch-finally-rethrow.

No need for `catch` and rethrowing. And in the case of C# and modern Java, no need for the rest either: You only need to wrap resources that you allocate into `using` (C#) or `try` (Java; but not `try…finally`! [1]). Sure, it’s more verbose than RAII in other languages with automatic storage duration (like C++). But it effectively performs the same.

[1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions...

I just had a brain fart.

> starts to depend on the kind of resource to manage.

Exactly, simple but not too simple. If the condition does not need to return early or can't, you don't.

> quickly end up managing file descriptors, sockets, handles, GUI resources

In some of the cases you describe you wouldn't return early or depending on the need, but if you can you should to minimize work.

Some examples: file descriptors you'd return early if the file does not exist, sockets you'd return if dropped or compromised and you have performed cleanup, handles if null, gui resources can be lots of things but if you were doing something where you needed to cleanup you can cleanup and return. In C# for instance you might wrap some of that in a using such as files, sockets, streams etc. Most of your examples you might already be in the meat of the return early flow and usually there is still a return at the very end but in/after the meat.

Returning early isn't saying do a dirty break or asserting out, you don't return early before cleaning up if you are within some resource.

Wrong. You need to exit before resource allocations :-). And in general if you allocate resources in most functions you're doing it wrong. Need global resource managers. Stack variables should only very rarely be resource owners.

RAII works just as well for heap allocated objects as it does for stack allocated ones.

Sure, but allocating resources on the stack is not good for maintainability. Software is easier to understand if its state is not hidden in semi-permanent call stack frames.

In general I agree with you, but that seems orthogonal to the subject at hand.

Parent's statement was that early returns are hard because you need to cleanup allocated resources. I don't think so, because there shouldn't (usually) be resources "on the stack".

But RAII is orthogonal to auto, static, or dynamic allocation.

Single exit point is not compatible with exceptions which most GC languages use extensively. Resource management in such environments is done with finally/using/with.

Even C has auto cleanup with __cleanup__ attribute in both gcc and clang.

I frequently use `goto` in C for this reason. A very common pattern is that I acquire some resources, do something with them, and have a section at the end of the function where I release them in LIFO order. This is labeled so that failure to acquire any resource will jump to a label just before the resources that were acquired before it are freed.

Other languages have constructs that obviates this pattern, for example Python has `with` blocks that acquire resources and free them upon leaving the block, and Go has a `defer` statement which adds code to some LIFO structure that always gets executed upon returning.

Is this true? C# and Go both have a nice way to clean up disposables on early return. I'd imagine most languages are similar these days?

I'm waiting on the jury for Almost Always Auto...

> Same way you evolve out of one liners.

> Same way braces go on the end of the method/class name to reduce LOC.

For me, these are exact opposites; the reason to not use one-liners is the same as the reason to put braces in separate line: both improve readability.

Wow, you captured so many things I saw in my own education. let me add one:

Same way you learn to let some code fail instead of handling every exception.

In my case, half the time I don't know how to handle the exception usefully, and the other half of the time hard failure is the better option. But that's mostly for data analysis.

> Programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early

indeed I've evolved it myself but always wondering if it was the right thing to do. Now I even have a name for it.

> Same way you move on from single condition bracket-less ifs.

This is one of those things that whether you drop it or not, you recognize the times it's caused you severe pain because you didn't notice it was single line when adding a statement, such as a debugging one, and all of a sudden the conditional part isn't what you were expecting.

This is actually one of the things I love about Perl. Single line conditionals were changed so they both looked different, and they only allow a single statement. e.g.

    if ( condition ) statement;

becomes

    statement if condition;

Regular if blocks still work as expected, but there is no braceless version of regular if conditions. I understand many people find it jarring at first, but it does allow for clear and concise precondition and return early statements, especially when grouped together. e.g.

    return undef if $param1 < 0;
    return undef if $param1 > 100;
    die "Not a number" if not looks_like_number($param1);

This can be horrible in JavaScript. It can make code really ugly. I have had to deal with code that looks like this recently:

    if (condition){
        doSomething()
        doSomethingElse()
    }
    else
       doSomethingDifferent()
    doSomethingConfusing()  // is this part of the else or not??

Perl got many things right. Its a shame it seems to have fallen away as a language.

>programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early, sorting exit conditions at top and meat of the methods at the bottom.

That's not true.

Sometimes, the code begs for an early return so you can focus on the meat of the method. Most times, that's not the case. Single return conditions should be the default, and you should have a good reason not to do the default. In Java, for example, if you also stick a 'final' on the uninitialized variable, you have very nice compiler check to enforce that every code-path initializes the variable once and only once. Sometimes that is also too strict for what you want to do, so you can break the rule, but you have to have a good reason.

>Same way braces go on the end of the method/class name to reduce LOC.

No. Just no. Not for that reason.

>Same way you move on from single condition bracket-less ifs. (debatable but more merge friendly and OP hasn't yet)

It's only debatable by people who are just used to it, or who want to minimize LOC for insane reasons. It's non-debatable in that it is a very common vector for bugs to sneak in. Over the last 5 years, there were probably as many bugs stemming from bracket-less ifs in our codebase.

>Same way you move on from heavy OO to dicts/lists.

You start introducing another common vector of bugs for a little flexibility. Sometimes that may be worth it. As a general rule, it's not worth it.

"Programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early, sorting exit conditions at top and meat of the methods at the bottom."

I generaly don't like when one person says (declares) how experienced persons act, but in this case I have to confirm with myself, as I also "evolved" to it and I tend to program in isolation, so I am no influenced by others so much.

After twenty-five years doing this, the only thing I would say is that the style points you mention above are completely irrelevant and the points that refer to actually writing code mostly correct. Programmers that have been programming a long time and are skilled should know the difference between the two types of points and not confuse them as equally important as you do. Also not writing comments because the code seems obvious when you're first developing it is totally a rookie mistake. Codifying it in rules is a sign that the programmer simply doesn't understand how the human mind works over long periods of time. No code is self documenting after six months away from it. None.

I've actually gone from avoiding else to requiring else, which is sort of a necessity when you're in a functional immutable environment where the result of a logical expression is a value (and often assigned as such), since it avoids undefined situations.

(This example comes from Elixir.)

value = if boolean, do: this_value, else: other_value

is undefined in some circumstances unless an "else" is included.

This pattern might seem weird to OOP folks (the assignment, not the ternary-operator-style logic), but in Elixir-land, it is not only considered superior to assigning inside if/then logic, you actually get a compiler warning if you assign/bind to a variable inside a logical expression because (again) that value becomes undefined as soon as you leave local scope (or re-acquires the value it had in the outer scope, thanks to immutability).

And if you think about it, values can only travel in one direction using this scheme, which further simplifies reasoning about information flows.

I would argue that this is also superior to early-exit as having one entry point and one exit point is much easier to reason about, and because the extra logical complexity you're ostensibly trying to avoid writing by early-exiting is actually still there, it's just obfuscated... and that complexity should be made obvious (in which case, if it's extensive, it would be a code smell... consider the example of a function with 25 early exits that "looks flat" visually, but which actually has 25 different branches)

That's just a ternary operator. I use that in Java all the time.

    value = boolean ? this_value : other_value;

If the branching logic gets too complicated, I usually move it into a function (private method) with a return in each branch.

And in Javascript, once do-expressions go from a proposal to a common part of the language, this will be a thing:

  let value = do {if (boolean) { this_value } else { other_value }}

...which is even closer to the Elixir style than JS's ternary operator (which is identical to Java's).

What's the advantage over JS's ternary operator?

I guess it depends on whether "if" is treated as an expression which returns a value, which I don't think is the case due to the fact that I don't think there is an implicit value return in JS (such as in Ruby; the final line in any scope is the value that scope returns; same as in Elixir)

The same pattern should be usable for things like switch statements.

I find myself doing the same for many of these points. I wonder what the point is then to hit OOP so hard in CS majors if at the end of the day production code isn't written like that. I guess my question is more the validity of seemingly esoteric concepts when practical programming evolves to the list in the post by drawkbox.

Can you give some examples of replacing OO with dicts and lists? I've made classes or structs to make it easier to manage what a few associated lists/dicts were representing, but I'm not sure I've done the opposite. Maybe using lambdas instead of subclasses?

Some of theese are debatable and others, like set operations, are missing

> Same way you move on from heavy OO to dicts/lists.

Is that a thing? No question that many concepts of OOP are in heavy need of reform, but I didn't know the basic idea of a struct was one of them.

I can sort of imagine this for quick-and-dirty things in untyped languages - but if you have types, passing dicts around everywhere seems like needlessly throwing away type safety - while it's also cumbersome to code and less efficient at runtime.

I think this might partially be related to the move towards streaming applications and microservices. You could create objects for everything you expect to receive/send and then when an API changes you lose the new fields, you get parse errors, etc. If you did it right maybe you can avoid some of those things, but the bottom line is that type safety is a little bit too strong a constraint for these use cases.

Even if I'm getting from a DB which won't be changing out from under me, many times I'd prefer just getting a simple Map rather than spending time creating a "safe" object. Do I create a User and UserWithDetails? Or always return UserWithDetails but sometimes fields are empty because I don't care about them? Dicts are light, objects are cumbersome.

You can of course create a User and a UserDetails, the former embedding the latter when necessary.

I also see getting parse errors when APIs change as a positive thing. When you change an API, things do break. Learning what breaks as early as possible is good. It's not even about objects vs. dictionaries, you could use any structured composite datatype and the overhead you associate with it depends very much on the language.

Of course, for a quick hack I'd happily dump data into a dictionary and call it a day. But if I want to learn why it breaks 5 years later, having a clear specification of the expected data is much better even if it cost me an extra few hours.

I'm a fan of TypeScript's structural typing for this reason. I can define an interface that describes the shape of a "plain old object" (it's fields and their types), and then write functions that accept/returns an object of that interface. What's great about structural typing is I don't have to explicitly say "create a new object of this type", any object that satisfies the shape of the interface is valid (object literals for example).

So you end up with the best of both worlds (in my opinion), where your state is made up of simple plain objects and you behaviors are just functions that accept simple plain objects, but you get all of the benefits of compile time static type checking because they are checked against the interface.

Don't you get problems with equal Signatures but different meaning or different scale? Example:

interface SomethingWithAge{ age(); }

class Person{ age(); // age in years }

function classify( SomethingWithAge item ){ if( item.age() < 20 ){ print( 'young') } else{ print( 'old' ); } }

p = new Person( 33 ); classify( p ) // prints 'old'

class Message{ age(); // age in milliseconds }

c = new Message( 231443 );

classify( c ); // prints 'old'

https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/202

It's in the roadmap, but discussions about it are still going on four years after the ticket was opened...

Right, dictionaries everywhere is a reliable way to slow down every language to the speed of dynamic languages like Python or JavaScript.

My understanding is, by “heavy OO” they mean custom container-like classes implemented by encapsulating a list or dictionary, but exposing non-standard APIs for get/set/erase/replace.

By the OO books that’s the way to go, because object state encapsulation. Practically, exposing raw lists/dictionaries/vectors/iterators at the class API boundary is more flexible because it makes the collection compatible with lots of other code, both in standard runtime and third-party libraries.

Another thing, if the only state that container holds is the collection of items, maybe you don’t need any container class at all. Just write global functions / static class / static methods that directly process lists or dictionaries of these items.

Using dicts/lists is more apt to flexible serialization/deserialization, versioning, changing data structures in fields/structure and are great for data/api prototypes that move into MVPs and eventually alpha/beta if not the final form.

OO can run into versioning issues with fields/structures changing and needing to have many versions of those over app iterations just dicts/lists. Database fields being added and removed and supporting old versions is more easily solved in basic dicts/lists that map to json/xml and the base of any language. Dicts/lists are very interchangeable across systems and are the base of API outputs and the ease of use in javascript, python and other dynamic uses.

There should be a reason you are using structured OO but many times it becomes as weight, though there are good times to use it and most projects have some of it. Good reasons are hardened/non-changing codebases, possibly native apis/libs to help understanding, but when it comes to rest/http apis usually you are building OO that consumes data simply to return to dicts/lists when output/input into the apis/client-side/etc.

Classes/OO/types can be built as well with objects that are based on dicts/lists that do have some internals and helper methods that get/set keys and values and perform actions if you don't want to do that with another context class/api, or wrap dict/lists so that the serialization/deserialization and versioning issues are not a problem as the flexibility of dicts/lists and the benefits that brings in simplicity are still there but there is more structure where needed.

> Programmers with lots of hours of maintaining code eventually evolve to return early, sorting exit conditions at top and meat of the methods at the bottom.

Except that I see soooooo many people try to write state machine code with early return/function encapsulation just to avoid indentation.

And then they get pounded when the state machine needs to evolve--and it always needs to evolve.

I really wish programmers had to design a VLSI chip, get it manufactured and debug it just once before they get out of school. The "So THAT'S why they have a global clock that synchronizes all the parallel operations in lock step" moment tends to be blinding.

> Same way you go more composition instead of inheritance.

What does that mean?

Basically instead of Subtype extends Type inheritance, you just give your Type class a SubtypeHolder field. Makes it easier to add different behavior as things' types become less similar than you expected.

this is so true, and my experience exactly.

one thing i do disagree with is commenting, there is a time in a place and its hard to derive on a rule on exactly where, when and how, but well placed comments are VERY important and can save developers a ton of time.

You guys just made me feel better about myself! Thanks, HackerNews.

I've never thought about this before but I nodded with agreement with each point.

All good arguments except for the end braces/LOC one. The visual cue is worth far more than the one line it takes up.

Anybody has an example for "Same way you move on from heavy OO to dicts/lists"?

My experience, on the contrary, has left me thinking that none of these are absolute. You apply certain constructs and styles where they make sense—which depends on what you're writing and who you're writing it with—and become increasingly suspicious that people who appeal to absolutes simply haven't yet encountered situations where the trade-offs ultimately balanced out in favor.

A more formal name for this approach is / could be Guard Clauses: https://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceNestedConditionalWith.... This pattern has been elevated to a language construct in Swift: https://thatthinginswift.com/guard-statement-swift/

I was more or less required to use guard clauses by my manager at my previous job.

I used to hate being forced to use them, just because as a recent computer science graduate I was happy with nested conditionals everywhere. But guard clauses make life so much easier, I eventually discovered.

They make testing your code a lot easier, and also make reasoning about the code and reading it so much easier.

Ruby makes writing methods with guard clauses a breeze, since you can just write something like `return if x > 7`.

guard also lets you unwrap your optionals and have them in scope for the rest of the function.

It makes logging easier

JavaScript has the guard operator. It can really clean up your control flow when you know it's a guard operator and not just logical AND.

A big gotcha with `&&` as a guard in JS is that it can return any falsey typed value if you don't coerce the guard to a boolean.

e.g.

    const check(cond) => cond && otherValue

If `cond` is falsey, it returns `cond`.

This means the function could return any of: `false`, `undefined`, `null`, '', `0` or `NaN`.

This is a fairly common issue I see with React + JSX:

    <div>{cond && <SomeComponent />}</div>

If `cond` is `false`, `null`, `undefined` or '', everything will be just fine, but if `cond` happens to be a zero or `NaN`, suddenly you have a weird `0` or `NaN` rendering in your page. Oops.

Low cost, much safer guard:

    const check(cond) => !!cond && otherValue

Good point. Good example. I imagine it works well in my cases but I haven't come across cases like your example where it breaks down.

...until you do.

That's the problem with antipatterns. It's impossible to remain alert to the edge cases, and then they eventually bite you in production. Better to lint them away. But it's difficult to convince people not to do something really convenient if they haven't gotten bitten yet.

Yes, back when CoffeeScript was in vogue the ? operator handled this case nicely:

  cond? && otherValue

Quite interesting. For a moment I've thought it is another JS issue but no. It's React who's strange https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v0.11.2/src/browser/u... https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v0.11.2/src/utils/tra...

Same behavior on Ruby:

    def content_markup(children)
      case children
      when String, Numeric
        children
      when NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass
        return
      else
        # ...
      end
    end

    content_markup 'foo'
    #=> "foo"
    content_markup 0
    #=> 0
    content_markup true
    #=> nil
    content_markup false
    #=> nil
    content_markup nil
    #=> nil

Logical AND in JavaScript can be used as a guard, by why in the world would you think of it as anything other than a logical AND?

If you start thinking it is a "guard operator", I would think that going down the wrong path, which might promote misunderstanding of the behavior.

> which might promote misunderstanding of the behavior

This isn't a misunderstanding, binary logical operators in JS short-circuit like this by design. I believe && and || returned a boolean value in the past, but were explicitly changed to support this behaviour.

Quoting ECMA-262 First Edition (June 1997), Chapter 11, Section 11 (Binary logical operators)[1]:

    The production LogicalANDExpression : LogicalANDExpression && BitwiseORExpression is evaluated as follows:
    
    1. Evaluate LogicalANDExpression. 
    2. Call GetValue(Result(1)).
    3. Call ToBoolean(Result(2)).
    4. If Result(3) is false, return Result(2).
    5. Evaluate BitwiseORExpression.
    6. Call GetValue((Result(5)).
    7. Return Result(6).

That is, the behavior has always been "If the first expression is false-ish, return the first expression, otherwise return the second expression" ("BitwiseORExpression" is a class of expressions that include a lot of things, including equality operators).

JavaScript does not have any operators that is not explicitly listed in a version of ECMA-262. It would be correct to refer to the construct as a "guard", but incorrect to refer to it as a "guard operator". Calling it "guard operator" also does not promote an understanding of the underlying construct.

1: https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-S...

> the behavior has always been

The ECMA spec only defines Javascript 1.3 and above. See this description for logical operators for Javascript 1.1: https://web.archive.org/web/20060318153542/wp.netscape.com/e...

ECMA-262 defines ECMAScript. "JavaScript 1.3" refers to a Netscape-specific language implementation ("Mocha", "LiveScript", "JavaScript"), with version 1.3 being based partially based on ECMA-262 Second Edition. Some of it might still live on in Firefox, but it is certainly not what people refer to as "JavaScript".

Doing some research, it appears that Netscape changed the logical operator behavior in version 1.2 (https://web.archive.org/web/19981202065738if_/http://develop...).

However, they did not highlight this change at all (https://web.archive.org/web/19970630092641fw_/http://develop...), so I suspect it was just a minor cleanup, potentially related to the equality operator change.

As a side-note: Netscape scripting was awful. This was how you casted an object to a Number:

    Number(x) = x;

Agreed, when I was first exposed to Guard clauses, (albeit in Elixir), I was amazed at how intuitive it felt to use them.

https://hexdocs.pm/elixir/master/guards.html

I learned some Swift when it as at 1.2 and I'm happy to see it evolve so quickly and take common statements, like the optional unwrapping "very long `if let` statement" mentioned article, and simplify it. I really should get back into Swift.

Swift also has the `defer` statement which makes this particular approach usable even if there is cleanup to do before the function can exit.

Yes, I love guard clauses!

I work in Python, and one thing I do if I end up needing to use the same guard clause in several functions is to turn it into a decorator. That way, if I need to update the logic, I can do it in one place and have it propagate everywhere and it makes the function's dependencies clear at first glance.

This was my introduction to aspect-oriented programming, which I've thoroughly fallen in love with.

As usual I found myself writing these more and more before finding out there was a word for them.

Are there any preprocessors or libraries to make statements like this easier in Javascript? Sometimes the guard statements can be longer than the function code and I go back and forth on whether to throw (forces the caller to anticipate) or return (causes lots of silent failures).

It would be great to use a defined approach.

And a good name for the bad style is Arrow Anti-Pattern[1]

This article also discusses the solutions (there's a lot of overlap with OP's article).

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArrowAntiPattern

It depends! But it depends on the actual meaning of the code, so examples which use meaningless identifiers like `doStuff()` miss the distinction.

If the conditions are semantically symmetrical, if/else is the right approach:

     fun max(a, b) {
        if a > b { a } else { b }  
     }

But is it a precondition which causes you to skip the primary logic of the function, then get it out of the way early:

     fun max(a, b) {
        // special case for null
        if a==null or b==null { null }
        
        if a > b { a } else { b }  
     }

Yeah we want to reduce indentation, but not at the cost of making the code overall harder to follow. The logic of "max" is much clearly expressed as a single expression with `else`.

Exactly this. Anyone who put their shoe in functional programming can make such a distinction.

Early returns are not a panacea. If/Else-everything is not a silver bullet either.

How about "there are no silver bullets, there is no substitute for clear thinking."

You could still write it as

    fun max(a, b) {
        if a > b {
            return a
        }
        return b
    }

Not saying this is necessarily better or worse. The point I want to make is that your case isn’t special.

I am arguing this is worse, since it expresses the logic in a more convoluted way.

I would argue that it is by no means more convoluted. It is quite clear and concise. All of the following are equally readable:

    if (x > y) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return y;
    }

    if (x > y) {
        return x;
    }
    return y;

    return (x > y) ? x : y;

The logic would be convoluted if you are going through extra hoops in order to write your logic like this, making the flow of the application unclear. For some things, an else branch ends up just being easier to deal with. This is especially true in languages like Rust, where if/else is an expression, leading to the following construct being used often (although usually with more complicated content):

    let max = if (x > y) {
        x
    } else {
        y
    };

Note that "max" is immutable despite the conditional assignment due to the if being used as an expression.

I think it's only clear and concise looking because of the achilles heel of this entire thread: terse examples. As soon as you need to do more than a single line of work, the else'd version becomes far more readable (due to superior indentation and clearer guarantees of what happens when).

If it's a single line of return in both branches, then a ternary expression is usually going to be ideal instead.

We can definitely agree that the examples are too simple to present any readability issues with any method of writing them short of an IOCCC entry.

I do not agree with the conclusions you draw at all, but it is hard to continue the discussion without examples. There are definitely cases where an else clause is the natural choice, but I believe that these are in the minority.

If you’ve ever had to deal with various errors or to filter out something and return the appropriate output, it is much more concise. Read past the if’s and you have the main logic of that function.

But that max function should have an else statement since it's part of the logic. Less code doesn't always make it more concise. If there's a more complicated logic, then it'd actually be harder to understand at a glance.

The examples are only similar to the extent that they do the same. If you look at what intent they communicate - which is an important part of readability - the second example indicates that x>y is a "special case", which just obscures the simple logic of the function.

I agree that what they communicate is important, but I disagree that the early return communicates "x>y" as a special case.

Nothing about early return indicates a special case, but rather just indicate that a conclusion has been reached. A few examples:

    1. A function that compares two arrays, and first checks if they are null or if their lengths differ before checking their individual elements, and potentially recursing. The early returns are likely to be the hottest section of the function, with the element checking being the special case.
    2. A function that searches a list or tree for a node that matches a set of conditions. All but at most one run will use the early returns, making the corpus of the function the special case.
    3. A function that does some processing, with fast paths that handle the vast majority of data, but a slow path for when the fast paths do not apply. The fast path is an early return, but the slow path is the special case.

In other words, I believe that it is incorrect to consider an early return to be a special-case, and interpreting code like so might result in misunderstandings. You should look at the condition to see if it is a special case. The only thing an early return indicate is that the return value has been decided, and no further processing is needed.

I still think that all my examples communicate the exact same to the reader.

I guess I would politely argue that creating new functions would make reading code harder in basic example such are this. You'll be jumping all round or possibly separate files. Obviously larger logic tress should be pruned. Side note: a lambda function may get around this specific instance.

The simple cases do come up though. I've written plenty of functions which amount to little more than a single if-statement and I have had people ask me to make changes like

  foo(things) {
      stuff = do_work(things);

      if (stuff) {
          return a;
      } else {
          return b;
      }
  }

into

  foo(things) {
      stuff = do_work(things);

      if (stuff) {
          return a;
      }

      return b;
   }

in code reviews.

>I am arguing this is worse, since it expresses the logic in a more convoluted way.

Ok, I really wonder if in this special case the logic just looks _odd_ because of bracing styles. (bear with me)

This is very easy to understand, where as the parent example, not as much.

  fun max(a, b)
  {
    if a > b
    {
      return a
    }
    return b
  }

Regardless of bracing style, I still interpret `return a` as a special case with respect to control flow due to the indentation. `return b`, on the other hand, is on the "happy path" — if this wasn't simply a max function, I'd assume from the indentation that it'd return `b` most of the time.

A max function is one of those rare moments where a ternary statement just seems right, but it's an admittedly simple example.

>I still interpret `return a` as a special case...

I think this is interesting. I wonder if our personal experiences with how we learned programming, maybe first languages or first teachers or jobs, etc... would effect our perceptions on logic flow.

I simple don't see anything unusual about the logic flow in the example. It's a simple if/else - return with less cruft to me.

Possible, and also shaped with recent language experiences. My first languages were JavaScript and C++ pretty much simultaneously. In both I'd write a max function with a ternary operator. It signals to me — in the same way as if/else — that no outcome is expected to be more usual or typical than the other, and that no path is more notable or interesting that the other.

The control flow isn't confusing either way, and some language linters will insist against if/else in this example, but I see the if/else approach with slightly more clarity. In general, though, I'm a big proponent of early return.

The earlier version is clearly better and more clear, but presumes a language where if is an expression (and the actual return keyword isn't required, though “return if ...” is nearly as good.)

But if you are using a more imperative language where “if” is a statement, I think the merits of early return vs. use of an else clause are more balanced in this case.

In C style languages you have the ?: operator though, which is basically if as an expression.

Functionally, yes, in terms of readability, not really. But, yes, for really simple cases like the example under discussion:

  return (a>=b) ? a : b

is probably the best option in those languages. The level of complexity at which the C ternary operator ceases to be ideal, I think, is lower than that of expression-if.

Yeah no hard rules, agreed on this point, especially when the if/else body is short.

The pre-conditions are called Guard Clauses [0]. It's really useful to think about guard clauses and explicitly look for them to ensure the pre-conditions are met rather than have them appear over time as if/else blocks.

edit: now that I've looked through the comments I see these are mentioned on numerous other threads.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_%28computer_science%29

I always found this type of "general purpose" coding rules rather useless and often counter-productive because some coders (especially beginners) will often cargo-cult and apply them without rhyme or reason. I've known coders who had the opposite rule: never have more than one return per function, use if/elses for the control flow (TFA mentions that). I don't know where this rule came from and neither did they, it's just how they were taught I suppose. Replacing that with yet an other "rule of thumb" is a bad idea IMO.

Writing clean and maintainable code is as art and requires balancing many variables. Sometimes an early return is warranted, sometimes an if/else might make more sense. If you're writing C code and you need to release some resource before returning (mutex, file handle etc...) then an early return might be error-prone and an "else" or "goto" might result in cleaner and more readable code. I use gotos a lot in error handling in C, I think it's a superior pattern to the one proposed by TFA if you have a lot of cleanup to do. In C++ and other object-oriented languages it's less of an issue thanks to RAII and/or GC.

Beyond that if/else might be more readable if both clauses are on the same "level" semantically. For instance if you write:

    if (some_cond) {
        do_a();
        return;
    }

    do_b();

It looks like `do_a` and `do_b` are not on the same "level", semantically speaking. If instead they're two variations of the same concept then an else might make more sense.

I'm trying to imagine worst case scenarios here, and at least in an environment like JavaScript, I'm struggling to see how a beginner being overeager with early returns can possibly create anywhere near the same degree of mess as a someone overusing nested if/else statements.

Agreed on early returns being questionable for "two variations of the same concept" though, these days I generally use if/else for situations like that.

That's why newer languages have try-finally.

Basically

Allocate resource

try

guard clause (early return)

logic

finally

deallocate

Basically, the try-finally clause guarantees that the finally clause is run when there is an early return.

Mmm, I disagree.

Influenced by functional programming, I prefer to use the style of: "keep all return statements at the same indentation level" in statement based languages. This way, it is easier to parse as an expression. For example:

  if (...) {
    let a = ...;
    return x(a);
  } else {
    return y;
  }

Can be easily mentally factored into the pseudo-expression:

  return ... ? x(...) : y;

It is easier to see what the side-effects (or ideally lack of) are. It also makes case analysis easier, and you don't hide the fact that you have 2^{indentation levels} number of possible states.

Early return while excusable for some very particular and idiosyncratic error handling examples (e.g. fortified C APIs that accept null pointers as no-ops) in general feels like "cheating", making the code look less complicated than it actually is (it "silently" multiplies the size of your state space without increasing indentation). But most importantly, it puts too much emphasis on control flow: I'd rather emphasize the underlying declarative intent, the state machines, and pre/post-conditions. This is is better achieved, in my opinion, by trying to delay returns, and to try to minimize the amount of code after a branching (this often means having unnecesary else branches, that on the other hand help with readability.) As shown before, this helps mentally factoring the code into reducible expressions and guessing state space and overall complexity.

I agree though that having one single-return is not good, cuz most of the time it forces one to use mutable variables that could otherwise be avoided.

> ... makes case analysis easier ...

> ...making the code look less complicated than it actually is...

> I'd rather emphasize the underlying declarative intent, the state machines, and pre/post-conditions.

So much this. The goal of refactoring code for readability is not to make it parse more like spoken language (ie, English). Its to aid in understanding and analysis. Having code layed out on the page in a way that mirrors the true control flow graph, makes understanding the CFG easier. Having a data flow graph that mirrors the control flow graph makes understanding the DFG easier.

> ... makes case analysis easier ...

> ...making the code look less complicated than it actually is...

> I'd rather emphasize the underlying declarative intent, the state machines, and pre/post-conditions.

These statements are strange to me as I personally see early returns as attempts as achieving exactly these goals. I guess people unroll logic in their head in different ways. "flat" to one may appear "nested" to another and vice versa.

Most functional languages also allow you to do something like this which is pretty much the same idea as guard clauses:

  foo 0 = 0
  foo 1 = 1
  foo n =
    ...

Ah yes, writing a language in such a way that it helps you imagine it's another. Excellent coding practice!

"removing a whole line and more braces" - this is really fighting the wrong enemy. Code should be written in a way it is more readable, not shorter.

Exactly. This led to the famous OSX double goto bug [0]

  if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
    goto fail;
    goto fail;
  ... other checks ...
  fail:
    ... buffer frees (cleanups) ...
    return err;

[0] https://www.dwheeler.com/essays/apple-goto-fail.html

The goto fail snippet doesn't conform to the "one logical statement per line" guideline in the article though, so the author would advise against this style too.

`goto` wouldn't be used in a return early philosophy.

Goto is heavily used to return early, by jumping to the cleanup section at the bottom of the function. Otherwise, you have to repeat the cleanup code at each exit point, or use the dreaded pyramid of doom where each failure point introduces another indent level, which is what the author here is trying to avoid in the first place.

"cleanup section at the bottom of the function" is pretty rare in JavaScript, which is what the original blog post is discussing. Same with Java, C#, Ruby etc.

No, it doesn't play well with early return, so avoid mixing them.

Actually, in Ruby we have "ensure"

    def foo arg
      return true if arg == 42
      puts "got past the guard"
      raise "blah"
    ensure
      puts "ensure always"
    end
    
    foo(42)
    foo(3)

The "ensure" blocks gets executed whether or not you return early, throw exception or return at the end of the block.

There are several constructs for it, see also "try ... finally" on C# and Java, and "using" statements in C#.

All make the "goto manual cleanup at end" less necessary, and make early return easier to use.

I should have specified that I was talking about C. You usually don’t need this pattern when you have garbage collection or C++ RAII.

Not a C-programmer at all but I would separate out the resource creation/access from acting on the resource. So Open X, Do Y on X, Close X would have do Y on X in a separate function and possibly Open X and Close X as well. This way Close X would be executed regardless of the result of Do Y on X.

Only by doing multiple things in one function you really need to use goto's in C. (again, as far I can judge coding in C, not an expert!)

The "Avoid Else, Return Early" blog post above appears to be about JavasScript code, which (along with Java, C#, Python, Ruby etc) do not ready do "buffer frees (cleanups)" much. They have other language and runtime mechanisms for this such as GC and try...finally blocks, which work fine with early return.

Yes, in the presence of teardown code at the end of the method, as is common idiom in C, avoid early return. This appears to be the case for apple's "goto fail" code.

However, don't generalise this to all languages.

I don't really understand why the use of goto is to blame there. If it was not a double goto but a double return, that'd still lead to this bug, no?

"Code should be written in a way it is more readable, not shorter."

Personally I think sometimes shorter code, that gets rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, is more readable. For example, C++ recently (in the past decade...) gained range based iteration.

Previously:

for(containe_type::iterator i = my_container.begin(); i != my_container.end(); i++){ do_stuff(i); }

Now:

for(auto& i : my_container) { do_stuff(i); }

This is really context sensitive. Some code benefits from verbosity while other don't.

I think the point OP’s trying to make is that reducing indentation levels makes code more readable.

I don’t agree with him about removing the braces, though. That way madness lies.

This particular refactor (changing `if (err) { return ... }` to `if (err) return ...`) didn't actually reduce indentation levels though. It only reduced the number of lines.

Yeah, I’ll file that under “maybe don’t do that”.

what are the downsides

In general terms, in C-like languages, mixing braces and semi-colons is horribly refactor unfriendly and bug prone. Meanwhile, sticking things on one line introduces a cognitive load that you might not want. (YMMV on the second point, but I’ve pretty strong views on the first.)

Ceteris paribus, shorter code always is more readable. It's the only guideline I've found true regardless of programming language or environment. Shorter is better.

It depends. Short, dense code can make the code more difficult to understand/change later, while overly bloated code can have the same effect.

I often find inelegant, yet straightforward solutions are generally better options than dense, mathematically pure solutions, simply because inelegant code usually relies on fewer assumptions. Noting that code rarely/never evolves the way we expect it to, apply Occam's razor and strike a balance.

No it doesn't depends. That's what ceteris paribus means.

Shorter code may or may not make things more readable. If brevity was the key to readability, we'd all be minifying all code we write to make it more readable.

Readability is about clarity of intent and function, as well as sensible structure. Sometimes that means writing slightly more code with more expressive naming so that the code is easier to follow. Sometimes that means using a given language's shortcuts to condense things down.

I would agree. Putting "early out" logic at the beginning allows the one who reads the code to lower the cognitive load a bit. Basically "I know I can read the following code safely because the error handling and parameter sanitizing is done". But that only works with mundane operations (error handling, parameters sanitizing). If the operations convey some important semantics, then I prefer to see the guarded code inside an if block...

If something is truly exceptional, this is a particularly good use for Debug.Assert. You have it fail in debug mode to help catch edge-cases but pass but returning early production (which may be more performant or otherwise wanted instead of throwing an exception).

Big blocks of if/else logic impose a heavy cognitive load. I find that anytime your eyes have to jump more than a few lines there's higher mental overhead

Definitely. But in that case, abstraction is my friend...

Sort of agree, but I don't think

    if (err) {
      handleError(err)
      return
    }

and

    if (err) return handleError(err)

are equally good. The second one doesn't really make it clear wether handleError returns a value and that value is intended to be returned.

I had to double check the function call occurred. It's not intuitive and removes braces in favor of possible side effects.

I don't think the latter is legal in most (non-JS) languages if the return value of the outer function is void.

Even if it is, I definitely agree that it should only be done if you want to communicate that handleError's return value is meaningful and should bubble up.

If the return value is important:

    if (err) return void handleError(err)

And in non-promise-based async JS, the return value is almost always lost/useless anyway so `return x` has no effect, might as well repurpose `return` for short-circuiting.

I don't think throwing void at people is generally going to make anything clearer.

why

I've never seen syntax like 'if (err) return void handleError(err)' before. If I saw that in JS I'd have to look up what it meant.

It’s an obscure operator. Many people are unaware of it and many of those that are have a vague notion of exactly what it does.

So people reading this code may have to stop and puzzle out this little pattern.

Here you can replace “ void “ with a new line and have code anyone with basic familiarity with a c-like language can read and understand intuitively.

In Ruby these are idiomatic enough to have a name and are built into the linter, so it'll yell at you if it sees that you're not using guard clauses.

As a further refinement, I will often take tricky conditional logic and put them into a method that consists of nothing but guard clauses and a return true or false at the bottom of the method. In Ruby you can use ? and ! at the end of method names, so I'll give the method an intention-revealing question-mark name. "Order.used_credit_card?"

I use this in Javascript whenever I can too, though of course it's not as semantically nice as Ruby.

Love this in Ruby. Rubocop's Guard Clause cop[1] always flag this for me.

  def foo
    fail unless bar
    return baz if foobar
    foobaz
  end

[1]: http://www.rubydoc.info/gems/rubocop/RuboCop/Cop/Style/Guard...

I would love Ruby-style guard clauses in JavaScript. Sometimes I wish I’d never written anything in Ruby just so I’d stop thinking about how great it would be if other languages shared some of its features.

I moved to Hyperloop on my personal projects. Give it a shot, I think you might like it.

http://ruby-hyperloop.org/

The guys in Gitter chat are quite helpful if you get stuck.

Not exactly the same but my JavaScript linter throws errors when I use "else" when it could be avoided.

That's called a predicate and is used in Scheme as well.

Guard clauses use predicates but not all predicates are guard clauses.

I think the real transcendence is when you try out many different programming paradigms (all of which have loads of good reasons to use) and overtime find out the shortcomings of each. Then just pick the right tool for each use case.

The general information here I think is good and I roughly follow. I have also done almost the opposite and removed as much code outside of the hotpath as possible from the top of the function for performance reasons (guided on profiling). Also there can be times where you jump to a function to see what it does and can't actually see as all of the edge cases come first rather than the bread and butter.

Often you need to be careful when thinking a new paradigm is fixing a problem, like handling the err variable being passed in, and question why there is an err parameter at all. Where does it come from. What are you actually meant to do when it happens? Does every case always just log it, or throw it? Is the logic being performed at the right level? Etc. Sure the answer maybe yes everything is correct but there will be lots of times that the complexity just shouldn't be there.

Horses for courses.

Seems to me that there is quite a bit of commentary on this subject, and you can find it by searching for its typical solution: guard clauses[1].

[1] http://wiki.c2.com/?GuardClause

Yeah, Swift in particular really embraces that pattern.

Also functional languages with function guards e.g. while Erlang/Elixir does not have a return statement (and thus early return) you can write

    handle(Err, Results) when Err /= undefined ->
        handle_error(Err);
    handle(_, Results) ->
        % etc…
        .

though errors would generally be reified as the ad-hoc union of two tuples and would look more like this:

    handle({error, Info}) ->
        handle_error(Info);
    handle({ok, Results}) ->
        % handle results
        .

The functional style that you show certainly has multiple points where a value is returned, so you could call it "early return"; even if as a syntactic shorthand the keyword "return" is omitted. This is common across a lot of functional languages.

> The functional style that you show certainly has multiple points where a value is returned, so you could call it "early return";

It's not "early return" any more than:

    function(err, results) {
      if (!err) {
         // handle results
      } else {
         return handleError(err)
      }
    }

Right, though I was thinking of other examples of functional match style and returning a value. As seen in in Haskell, F# Rust etc.

e.g. https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/second-edition/ch06-02-match....

So value_in_cents can return a value of 1, 5, 10 or 25.

Saying that it "does not have a return statement" might be truish - but the fact that the "return" keyword is not needed to return values is just syntax.

Saying that there's no early return / multiple exit points is not so much. To my eye there are 4 places where that function can return a value. And the cases might not be simple numbers making the whole thing an expression, later examples on that page show how the cases can differ in side-effects.

Copy of the article, which doesn't require JS:

https://gist.github.com/jwilk/6e7ecb94b623a82d01cdcd9765f05b...

This blogpost's analysis is incomplete. It needs to discuss the core issue with WHY C programmers originally avoided multiple return statements. Its pretty simple:

    void function(){
        lock_mutex();
        void* thingy = malloc();

        if(...)
        {
            return; // Bug!! You forgot to unlock the mutex
            // Bug!! You forgot to free(thingy);
        }

        // Imagine 100 lines of code here
        
        free(thingy); // Hard to remember with 100 lines of code in the way
        unlock_mutex();
    }

When functions grow to hundreds of lines of code, you need to ensure that all cleanup functions are called. Modern programming languages have features to handle this case "automatically" (Python "with", C++ RAII, Java finally). Which is why its fine today.

I think there's a lot of value to returning early out of functions when you hit an error condition. There's not much reason to go further if you're just completely hosed. (e.g. malformed arguments).

However, I don't think that coders should shy away from built-up result values for return. It makes the code more friendly to things like copying (I can feel the boos and hisses now), block restructuring, #ifdef'ing (or some equivalent), short-circuiting, and debugging. If you have one easy breakpoint to set that still has a stack so you can peek at a result, it's pretty darned convenient.

So, yes, sure, tend to error out first (this is not news), but don't just litter returns all over the place in code that's going to have to be used and modified by lots of people. The goals for practical code should revolve around the useful lifecycle of that code. Make it readable, portable, mutable, ibleable, ableible, etc.

In many cases, carrying a return value on the stack is a decent way to do this. In some contexts, particularly where branching is expensive, it can have performance implications as well.

Guard clauses aren't only for errors. They do however usually involve certain kinds of asymmetry. Typically: The early return case does fewer things (or nothing) than the major case. Or the early return case is normal, but has a 'negative' sense (which again does less work) like not finding a key in a dictionary.

I agree with you.

I think the statement (ish) “don’t use if/else, use return” deserves some qualification, and one natural place to use it is for errors.

When people start dropping returns all over massive multi-screen branching and looping structures, readability may suffer, and debugability quite often takes a big hit.

In general, I like to use guard clauses for any big at-entry branch asymmetries. If they’re farther down the logic tree and/or unwieldy, it may be time to call some more functions.

I do this all the time in Ruby, Python, JavaScript because the code is so easier to read. Error management tends to stick to the beginning of functions/methods and the main algorithm doesn't have to be indented.

With Ruby it's even cleaner because of the postfix conditionals.

    def something() 
      return value2 if error1
      return value2 if error2
      do_something
    end

The return values in case of errors stand out, the conditions for the errors do not clobber the code because they are sidelined.

I have read somewhere else (https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1187...) that the "single exit" rule was not actually about having only one place where the function returns, but actually about having a single place where the function returns to.

That rule seems to have been so successful, that no modern language I know of allows (the original definition of) multiple entry or multiple return (except for exceptions).

Forth may not qualify as "modern" for some (though it still has a way of staying around in some contexts, like bootloaders), but it does allow code to store to and retrieve from the return stack, which is also used for loops.

If you read that and thought "does that mean I can change loop iteration order and returns programmatically?!?" and/or "WTF?!", the answer is, yes, to all of it. WTF indeed.

I've never actually seen a non-pathological use for this language feature.

Multiple entry/exit points is the defining characteristic of coroutines(as described by Knuth.)

The functional equivalent would be (delimited) continuations and is extremely powerful (but potentially confusing in an untyped context.)

I had a coworker who was fanatical about removing else blocks, and would refactor entire files so that else wouldn't be necessary.

This blog post is about guard clauses and it's good advice. But if you find yourself refactoring huge chunks of code to avoid a keyword, even making code more complex as a result, stop and consider that you may be making things worse, and maybe look at your other habits to see if you're doing the same thing elsewhere.

I've been slowly trying to get back into hobby/side development after not being a professional developer for 11 years. Even when I was a full-time developer, I was never really in a "junior" role or dropped into an existing, quality codebase, so much of what I was doing was from scratch. Although my coding did improve as our team grew and it forced me to be more disciplined, I never learned a lot of little hints like this that make your code much clearer.

In getting back into it, I've relied a lot of Laracast's tutorials in both learning Laravel, along with how much PHP has evolved in the past 11 years, but also some of his code quality videos, which included one on this very topic! After seeing that, I immediately started refactoring some recent code I had written with the goal of flattening it to as few indents as possible by eliminating else's and elseif's. Sure enough, I was much happier with the refactored code than I was with the original, even if the output of the code was the same.

I would strongly recommend Gary Bernhardt's Destroy All Software[0] screencasts. They're usually done in Ruby but independent from language, and more about concisely explaining general programming concepts.

Everything is crisp, and distilled down as far as possible. I've learned a lot just from the thoughts it has given names to and elaborated on.

If you're skeptical, there's even free trial episodes that you could give a shot first. (I would recommend "Functional core, imperative shell")

[0]: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts

I’ve always been a fan of refactoring deeply nested if/else into a more linear less nested sequence of if/return statements.

If the function spec is a sequence of complex AND checks which must be satisfied in order to do work, an unnested sequence of “if (!x) return” statements are logically equivalent, have less indentation, and I think it’s much cleaner and easier to read comment blocks above each IF explaining the reason why each check is there.

I also really like seeing the main body of the function which is doing the real work at be bottom without any nesting/conditionals around it at all. It helps you find it if it’s always down there at the end, rather than in the middle indented way to the right.

If you have a complicated function, and several exit points where you want to bail out, they why not just put a "label: bail" and goto it?

GOTO has a bad rap IMO. There's a place for it, and the author should probably be using it.

You're a brave person to say this in public. :D

Because if you don't have resource cleanup to do in the method, the GOTO boilerplate is just making things unnecessarily more complicated than a simple return.

> If you have a complicated function, and several exit points where you want to bail out, they why not just put a "label: bail" and goto it?

Because go-to is so infrequently a good choice and do frequently used when wrong that most languages don't have it at all, so it's not an option. It may be a reasonable. choice when available, especially if you aren't breaking structure and thereby making it harder to follow the logic.

This often becomes a non-issue if your functions are short anyway. Having this discussion can sometimes be a code smell in itself.

Obviously it's impossible to completely generalise over, but sometimes it's worth asking yourself if the function is doing too much. In saying that though, early returns are great for input validation.

There are major issues with not using else - in that there is no obvious way to test whether it should be there or not. Any programmer returning to your code (or even you returning to your code a year later) can't know what the intention was/should be, and neither can the compiler.

I try (in C#) to avoid if/else completely (not always possible, but it's a general guide) and I try to work with ternary expressions instead. This forces you to explicitly consider the else case and explicitly state what the intention was. It also makes composition of code blocks simpler and often removes the issues of statement ordering.

You can take it further by using Option\Either\Validation monads to reduce the cyclomatic complexity [1]. This approach can allow for composable and reusable validation computations making the job of validation trivial.

By the way, this is more of a general point about if/else rather than the very simple case of argument validation that the blog talks about. I don't particularly have a major issue with a series of early outs in any function. But if you want to do anything more complex, ignoring else can be a source of bugs.

[1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/master/LanguageE...

You aren’t really reducing complexity with the monadic approach, just replacing explicit control flow for implicit control flow masked as data flow. Debugging can become harder in the latter case.

Which is written once, rather than 1000s of times. That's a reduction in cognitive load and the same 'missing else' bugs I mentioned.

I agree it's not always easier to debug - but mostly (I find) writing code as pure expressions rather than a sequence of statements reduces the need for debugging massively. So, I don't think it's quite as black and white as you paint.

No, you usually have to debug just as much, you just don't have any nice tools to do it with. I agree the monadic approach looks cleaner, but just be ready to undo it for any kind of hairy logic that requires debugging.

I have not found that and use it extensively. So, I respectfully disagree.

Debugging isn’t significantly harder, it’s a bit harder. In VS you can break on individual LINQ expression stages, read the unpacked values, read the let values, etc. If I’m composing with Bind functions then I can always break either inside the lambda or the static function being used for the bind operation.

You can eval the arguments, but you still have to pop a stack frame on if you can at all to get at the underlying control flow. You then have to integrate all those frames by yourself in your head. Even the most ideological Scala programmer wouldn’t replace all their if statements with options.

This makes sense only when you have to have an explicit return point. In languages that return the last expression, I find it much more palatable to represent your conditions as top-level if expression.

A conversion of the base example would be:

    function () {
      if () {
        x
      } else {
        if () {
          y
        } else {
          z
        }
      }
    }

Granted it's also worth noting in such a language I rarely find myself using `if` and `else`. More likely I'm doing flow control based on `map` and some version of `getOrElse` (Scala's term for Option that allows you to return an existing value or alternate to a nonexistent value). These abstractions tend to compose better, and lead to more clarity as to what particular data item is leading to the value being one thing or another; e.g.:

    function() {
      requestValue orElse sessionValue getOrElse defaultValue
    }

If requestValue is defined, return it; otherwise, if sessionValue is defined, return it; otherwise, return defaultValue. While not all conditions are immediately expressed this way, many of them can be simplified to data flow decisions that can be expressed this way, and the exercise of reworking the solution to use this strategy clarifies the surrounding program as well.

Two uses for tests are (1) detecting a corner case or other non-standard or exceptional case, and (2) performing case analysis on a type that can have two values.

(1) often raises an exception or returns an error, failure type, or zero type. The clearest implementation is generally as a guard clause, for the reasons in the neighboring comments and their links.

(2) might most explicitly be represented by changing the boolean to a two-valued enum or (parameter-free) union type or algebraic type; or at least by using a switch statement with cases for true and false. For example, an `ascending` boolean variable could be replaced by a `sortOrder` variable, whose type has values Ascending and Descending. These more explicit alternatives are also more verbose, though. Using a boolean to represent a two-valued type is such a common and readable idiom that introducing an extra type is often a readability and maintenance hit, even if it's more explicit. Similar, using a case statement instead of an if statement might match the underlying math or design, at the expense of verbosity. I generally go with an if statement with two arms, instead of an early return, in to make clear that the branches represent case analysis rather than one normal and one exceptional path.

The whole "return in one place and it must be the last line" thing in our coding standards here is just semantic noise - because you still have to set the "gotta return" flag and repeatedly bypass the subsequent attempts to do stuff. So it still returns up front, even if it doesn't "return" up front. It just has to spend the remaining lines of the method tiptoeing around the fact.

Experienced programmer should not be giving these kinds of vague general advice that really only apply to certain cases. Writing a sorting algorithm and a node.js routing callback requires demands different styles. And if code already exists, just follow the same principles as what's already there. It's far more important to keep code formatting consistent than less indented...

I am not advocating for the opposite but having return statements in the middle of the code does have its drawbacks. In many instances it makes the code less easy to read. For instance when I write:

    If (x) {
      Return y;
    }
    Return z;

I don't see that return y and return z are on the same conceptual level cause their indentation is different. The "else" is implicit, and so as a reader I have to make the effort of thinking "oh that part has already exited, so I'm in the case when 'not x'".

Anyways. All in all, just optimize your code for what makes sense and avoid general advice on code formatting.

Certainly is hard to read nested code, but returning earlier makes it harder because now our mind has to construct the execution path instead of reading it. What I usually do is writing the body in a new procedure. Dijkstra designed a language with no return statement with a very simple semantics made for proving the program behaves exactly as its specification mandates. Niklaus Wirth designed Oberon with no return statement. Currently I write Go code only using return at the end of the procedure, my code is easy to follow and has fewer errors than before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarded_Command_Language https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.h...

Golang is not comparable, as you get to leave failures not handled explicitly because its goto-fail scheme. I mean, that's a very nice feature of Go, but not comparable.

The danger with early returns is failure to handle all cleanup. This is really a failure of many programming languages. Golang gets this right. But even so, I'd rather have early returns (or early goto-fails) than ever deeper if/else ladders.

Another option that works very well is this:

    ret = thing1(...);
    if (ret == 0)
        ret = thing2(...);
    if (ret == 0)
        ret = thing3(...);
    if (ret)
        <handle failure>;
    return ret;

Writing Go it is good practice dealing with the errors first and, when possible, using if/return; and I agree. Less indentation is good IMHO, and conditional nesting is usually best if avoided.

Working on someone's else code I've found this:

    if a, err := func(); err != nil {
        return err
    } else {
        // a exists here
        ...
    }
    // a is gone

I would have wrote it differently:

    a, err := func()
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    // work with a

I guess it depends on the amount of code to put in the "else" branch, but I thought this was interesting because it looks like someone was avoiding to write the error checking in a different line.

Another option that works very well is this:

        ret = thing1(...);
        if (ret == 0)
            ret = thing2(...);
        if (ret == 0)
            ret = thing3(...);
        if (ret)
            <handle failure>;
        <common cleanup>;
        return ret;

No ever-deepening if/else ladders, and no goto-fails.

Alternatively:

        if ((ret = thing1(...))
            goto out;
        if ((ret = thing2(...))
            goto out;
        if ((ret = thing3(...))
            goto out;
    out:
        if (ret)
            <handle failure>;
        <common cleanup>;
        return ret;

This has a goto-fail, but only one, so it's Go-like.

This is one of the reasons why I grew to really love function overloading, especially in combination with pattern matching (I learned both first with Clojure, perhaps, but have only become comfortable with them now with Elixir). I can often avoid if/then statements altogether! It's also interesting how error handling becomes much less of an issue.

I do a lot of javascript programming, and it's often quite frustrating to not have these and other features available. While I by no means hate Javascript, I have to admit I feel a bit silly about being defensive about it in the past. I just didn't know what I was missing, or didn't see what the big deal was.

You can approximate method overriding in JavaScript by overriding the prototype method value and calling .apply on the original from inside the new one.

> While I by no means hate Javascript, I have to admit I feel a bit silly about being defensive about it in the past. I just didn't know what I was missing, or didn't see what the big deal was.

I'm glad to hear a perspective like this. I'm fortunate enough to not come across too many people like this, but I'm always utterly baffled by people who get defensive about the smallest complaints about Javascript (of which there are many valid ones that have nothing to do with irrational hatred).

Ha, well, not to get too defensive about my past defensiveness, this was at a time where the irrational hatred was constant and unrelenting. Some time after the 'Javascript: The Good Parts' book, but before all the ES6 goodies.

Just a few weeks ago I had some badstalgia when I mentioned I did front-end development to someone. He responded with a rant about how real programmers don't use javascript, and how it was written in ten days, and so on.

But yes, I'm happy to have largely stepped away from the language wars. I occasionally join the #javascript channel on IRC and it's truly astounding how much of the conversation is just people attack or defending javascript passionately, and for very silly reasons.

> Ha, well, not to get too defensive about my past defensiveness, this was at a time where the irrational hatred was constant and unrelenting. Some time after the 'Javascript: The Good Parts' book, but before all the ES6 goodies.

Yea, it's a crappy feedback loop, where unfairness on either side leads to people being even more strident in their position[1].

> He responded with a rant about how real programmers don't use javascript, and how it was written in ten days, and so on.

Ugh yea, that's exactly the kind of person I'm talking about. I may be dismissive about JS as a language, but the idea that "real" devs don't use it is ridiculous.

[1] though I admit I can't really relate to people taking their choice of programming language personally. To quote pg, "keep your identity small"

1. This is common in Go; 2. It is not about saving lines or curly braces. It is about the flow of code, and branching away when expectations are violated. It is about helping readers of code establish a mental model of the intentions of code.

I guess this makes sense when programming in an imperative paradigm. Scala, for example, has a completely opposite convention. Most of the scenarios he describes are usually things that would never occur in a functional paradigm.

Agreed. I've been writing functional code for almost 10 years now and I fail to see any situation in which I could apply this.

Functions are rarely longer than 10 lines, there is no explicit return statement, just a short sequence of data processing and that's it.

Error handling early on with a throw or return is so much better because it just allows you to stop thinking the very moment you need to stop caring about the remainder of the function.

It's very much like any logic or debate, where you simply want to prevent getting into any of the details that occur further down the logical chain if you can already dismiss what is to come by detecting the exit condition early. There have been countless occasions where I've heard people having conversations for hours that should failed and exited early due to an exit condition at the very beginning of the conversation.

The one liner is the wrong conclusion.

Why?

1) When using a debugger, it takes more effort to place a breakpoint on the inner statement.

2) If you want to insert statements inside the if block you will be changing version control history for statements other than what you are modifying.

About 2, you may argue that this will be the case anyways because braces are not used... the solution to that is to always use braces.

Then there's another important aspect: handling error conditions is important part of your logic. Do not sweep them under the rug. Proper error handling is a big part of what makes applications robust, they need to be as readable as everything else.

> Error handling is noise.

Use a language which has syntax to automatically handle the error handling noise for you (dare I so do notation in Haskell). Go is egregious in that regard, the constant repetition of `if err != nil {…}`.

I was made to have only one exit point for some projects and it drove me up the wall. It only really makes sense if you're coding in languages like C. I don't like functions written this way because they're longer, are harder to read, have complex nesting and most of all they introduce state (the variable that stores the result). In dynamic languages, you're not going to get warned if you forget to set the result variable and if you forget the variable can be returned as a null which is a horrible source of bugs.

> I was made to have only one exit point for some projects

Did they give any rationale for this?

It should be easier to reason about code when there is exactly one exit from a block. I am not sure this really applies when we are talking about guard clauses that are not deeply nested. So loop breaks and other shallow returns are OK, and can be good.

It was just cargo cult programming as far as I could see where what one senior developer said was taken as gospel. I tried arguing objectively against practices like this and several others but was ignored.

It was so bad, I remember one time some of the junior programmers literally shaking their heads when they saw some functional programming language examples for the first time because multiple returns are idiomatic there. They couldn't explain why multiple returns were bad, just that they were bad.

I don't find this uncommon though and understanding it's a time saving heuristic. People will accept a "best practice" from an authoritative source without question and only later start thinking about it objectively when it gets in their way somehow.

If your team is ignoring objective arguments though then you're in a cargo cult.

I used to prefer keeping a single return point in my methods, but over time this changed. Now I find myself returning as early as possible when there's an error or some other failed condition from which the method can't/shouldn't continue. For my hobby project I'm using Go and have found that it especially promotes this practice - it encourages me to handle errors early and often; if I nested all of the error-related conditions my methods would get very messy very fast.

This also works well with a C++ `defer` helper.

    #define CONCAT_LITERAL(x, y) x ## y
    #define CONCAT(x, y) CONCAT_LITERAL(x, y)

    template <typename F>
        struct DeferWrapper {
            F f;
            DeferWrapper(F f) : f(f) {}
            ~DeferWrapper() { f(); }
        };

    template <typename F>
        DeferWrapper<F> deferWrapper(F f) {
            return DeferWrapper<F>(f);
        }

    #define defer(code) auto CONCAT(_defer_, __COUNTER__) = deferWrapper([&]() code)

Example of usage:

    {
        Foo *foo;
        if (initializeFoo()) {
            warn("Foo could not be initialized");
            return;
        }
        defer({
            destroyFoo(foo);
        });

        Bar *bar;
        if (initializeBar()) {
            warn("Bar could not be initialized");
            return;
        }
        defer({
            destroyBar(bar);
        });
    }

This way, all initialization and destruction happens in one block of the code on the same level of indentation as everything else. Useful for socket code, file handling, encoding/decoding states, etc.

You're turning RAII upside down... Learn to use proper RAII and you won't need this defer hack.

Tell that to the APIs I work with, like POSIX sockets/Winsock, etc. You're suggesting that I wrap them all with RAII? That's ridiculous when you have hundreds of C types which are all used just once or twice. Using defer makes elegant/simple C-like code because it uses the C APIs directly and is nearly the same number of lines of code as a C programmer would write without using defer.

I fail to see how "learning proper RAII":

    struct FooWrapper {
        Foo *foo;
        FooWrapper(...) {
            foo = initializeFoo(...);
            if (!foo)
                throw FooException(...);
        }
        ~FooWrapper() {
            destroyFoo(foo);
        }
    }

    try {
        FooWrapper fooWrapper(...);
    }
    catch (FooException &e) {
        ...
    }

is easier than

    Foo *foo;
    if (initializeFoo(foo, ...)) {
        ...
    }
    defer({
        destroyFoo(foo);
    })

If this isn't what you meant, could you demonstrate?

You could use a std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/unique_ptr

This is a reasonable suggestion since the code isn't too bad.

    std::unique_ptr<Foo, std::function<void(Foo*)>> p(new Foo, [](Foo* p) {
        if (p) destroyFoo(p);
    });
    // initialize Foo and set to NULL if failed

It increases complexity a bit because you no longer have a simple pointer, and you can't allocate on the stack anymore (my example should have declared `Foo foo;` with `destroyFoo(&foo)`, sorry for typo.)

If you didn't want a pointer you could have just used something like:

    template<typename TFoo, typename TDestr>
    struct FooWrapper {
        TFoo foo;
        const TDestr destroyFoo;

        template<typename TInit>
        FooWrapper(Tinit initializeFoo, TDestr destroyFoo) : destroyFoo(destroyFoo)
        {
            foo = initializeFoo();
            if (!foo)
                throw FooException(...);
        }

        ~FooWrapper() { destroyFoo(&foo); }
    }

Although really that should have been part of the "Foo" class itself, but if you need to deal with external code I suppose that might not be possible.

Oh yes, I forgot to make it clear that `Foo` is a C struct from a C API. There are tens of thousands of such libraries.

An issue with your wrapper is that it is not generic enough and thus must be written for each Foo-like object. That could likely be fixed with more template arguments, but of course there are multiple ways to initialize C objects like

- `fooInitialize(Foo foo); // expects that foo is pre-allocated`

- `fooInitialize(Foo foo); // allocates and sets the Foo pointer. Annoying, but some libraries do this.`

- `Foo fooInitialize(...); // taking certain arguments`

A single `defer` wrapper allows you implement custom destruction behavior for each instance, which is useful if you want to set flags or log errors in the destruction process.

Well you probably have your reasons for needing an absurdly general method of handling things. That said I think it would be a lot cleaner to use locally define a class that takes care of both initialisation and destruction when possible, rather than one that only takes care of the destruction. I wouldn't mind too much if you used macros to simplify the boiler plate somewhat.

What worries me is that using 'defer' leaves absolutely no possibility for reusing the code, other than by literally copy pasting it, which just rubs me the wrong way. It goes completely against the DRY principle.

It's up to you to litter your code with these `defer` blocks. Although I'm a bit skeptical about POSIX sockets being such an obscure API that it's not worth creating a proper RAII container for them. (not to mention the pre-existing boost socket library)

To each their own ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A general rule in C++ programming is that time spent "perfecting" your code increases, the more difficult it is to change and maintain it, and the probability of using Boost approaches 1. Using Boost as a dependency makes your project very cumbersome for to users to compile by themselves.

I put perfecting in quotes, because I believe overengineered, verbose code is something that makes code worse for the reader, writer, and tester. This is why startups are able to accelerate faster than enterprise programmers while they are still able to do this sort of thing.

My point is that RAII is not for everyone, so much so that a popular modern language was developed which avoids it (Go) and includes `defer` instead.

So with this, you literally had just thrown away the whole concept of RAII...

See my response to the sister comment

Similar approach was discussed a few months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523286

One drawback of returning early is it can complicate debugging. If I want to stop on a breakpoint when a function exits, it's nice to be able to set a single breakpoint on the final return statement. When you spew returns all over the function, your life gets more complicated. Some debuggers let you put the breakpoint on the final brace and will do the right thing, others make you find and put a breakpoint on each return.

Another thing I avoid doing because it complicates debugging is putting a final calculation on the same line as the return:

    return combine(foo.calculate(), bar.calculate());

Some debuggers make it difficult for me to examine the result of the combine() function and/or the results of the .calculate() methods. Better to be explicit:

    auto foo_result(foo.calculate());
    auto bar_result(bar.calculate());
    auto combine_result(combine(foo_result, bar_result);
    return combine_result;

There, much better, arguably more readable, and I can stop at whatever step I need to.

I've had to debug far more code in my career than I've had to write, which has encouraged practices that make debugging as straightforward as possible.

I find a compromise is best.

First, do the simple checks "Oh, this function returns an empty set if one of its parameters is null? Do that".

Then go into the main method body. In the main method body, I want to see elses on ifs. I'm okay with putting a return in each branch of the if/else, but what I find bad is when the main body is

```

  if(foo)
  {
     doLotsOfStufff();
     return myResult;
  }
  return bar;

```

That pattern I can't stand. That's as confusing as switch-block fallthrough.

For those cases, I prefer to see an else. If you must fall through to a final return while you've had a zillion other returns in your branching logic, then that deserves a comment at least explaining that this is the final fallthrough return.

```

  if(foo)
  {
     doLotsOfStufff();
     if(somePositiveCase)
     {
        return myResult;
     }
     if (someOtherNeutralCase)
     {
        doSomePreparatoryThing();
        if (heyMoreChecks)
        {
           return positiveResult();
        }
     }
  }
  // this comment here is super important where we 
  // explain that we couldn't do any positive thing 
  // so this is a failure state.
  
  return barFail;

```

So how does the final example even look with else's? I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make with such an awful control flow in the first place?

I also disagree with needing a comment, which is why I think not having an else in the first example is great. Having a return statement at the end of a function is obvious, and then all you have to do is scan upwards to find other return tokens. Especially because the final return need not be an error state.

Before I heard about the single exit point rule, I have coded during many years using multiple exit points. I am complying with the rule for many years and I am quite happy with it. The code is slightly more nested, very slightly longer to type. But OTOH, the style checker can spot mistakes in my code and there is less thinking about how I will structure my code to make it smarter.

IMHO, the gain is small but not smaller than the cost.

> single exit point rule,

What makes it a "rule" or as sometimes said, a "law"?

It's just a style, and it has pros and cons, cases where it helps, and cases where it hinders.

It's interesting when style becomes rules, the years goes by and no one challenge the "best practice", languages and frameworks might change, but the rules stay, for no good reason. So yeh, why only one return !?

> So yeh, why only one return !?

Because it was a good idea in C.

it's pretty much irrelevant to Java, JavaScript, C#, Ruby, Python, Rust etc.

But the rules stay, for no good reason.

> It's interesting when style becomes rules, the years goes by and no one challenge the "best practice",

FWIW, I would start making plans to leave a company where any significant amount of my colleagues followed rules like this without challenging them or being able to articulate their rationale.

How is it that articles like this not only get written, but get voted onto the front page of HN? It's not that the content is bad but that the content has been presented elsewhere, and numerous times, e.g. c2 wiki.

Is it because we're not really engineers? We're just hackers? I feel like I've seen this discussion every five or ten years or so. Is that just my perception, or do we have waves of interest and knowledge building and then loose it all in some exodus from the industry every ten years that I'm not aware of? One of the threads here ended up exploding into yet another coding style "discussion", the kind I first remember back in 1995, and my attitude hasn't changed since then (just pick one and move forward).

I can only imagine that as soon as B[1] was created, programmers started arguing about whether or not the curly brace should go on a new line.

And that's the real problem here. We are still attempting massive engineering works using the tools of 1969: text files. We have graphical tools with automated assistants for finance, medicine, space flight, car design, but when it comes to the software that we programmers use to create that other software, it's 1969 text files with curly braces. No fucking wonder I keep seeing the same old shit. We should be in outer space right now, but we're still teaching the kids how to hold the sticks to make fucking fire.

[0] http://wiki.c2.com/?SingleFunctionExitPoint

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_(programming_language)

I worked in MISRA C for a while. You are not allowed to exit early there; every run needs to be deterministic.

But when it's normal programming; YES. Definitely yes.

Deterministic in what context?

Haven't looked into it for a while, but, it used to undermine the JIT compiler to use multiple return statements in a single method in Java.

That said, I entirely disagree with the premise. I find it vastly easier to reason about a function/method that does not return early. To me, this is on par with writing switch statements that don't cover all the possible values: a sin.

I agree with much of the article (return early, errors management at the top, etc.). But won't returning a "wrong" value for the sake of one less line worsens the readability of the code?

When I saw that, I imagined myself spending 10 minutes trying to understand why he does that. But maybe I'm not familiar with a JS best practice here.

returning a wrong result is definitely wrong. It conveys some unexpected meaning and side effects...

The `err, result` function signature implies the function is an asynchronously executed node-style callback, which can never return anything anyway. Well, it can return something, but nothing internal reads it and there's no way for user code to access the returned value so return becomes only useful for short-circuiting.

I switched to using this style in the last few years, but it only works well where the code is reasonably good quality otherwise, in particular with short methods and classes. If you're dealing with legacy code with massive procedural style methods having return statements scattered around makes things even more confusing.

Since it forces you to write short methods everything you add or change on the existing code will automatically improve the code quality. Also depends on your refactoring tools, C# with ReSharper can reliably refactor without side-effects.

If you are working in C (not C++ with RAII), return early is a huge headache and maintenance hassle. Basically you want to free any loose buffers on any exit path out of the function, and if you only have one place out of the function, you only have one place to put it.

Or, as I think of it sometimes, if you have N buffers and M early exits, you need O(NM) free statements. When the code changes over time with more exit paths, you need to change that many places. So best to make M=1 for greatest sanity.

A language that does this for you more automatically (either RAII, or GC) then sure, early exit away. Although, one further point I do like about the more explicit C style is you end up writing code that looks very similar in the failure path and success path, which makes you prepared for when things inevitably fail...

really not a fan of "return early" style, because of logging: I like to have the ability of look at the business logic flow as/if needed and monitor its states but multiple returns per method force having complex "ifs" logged one after another, while in a single return pattern you can concatenate the reasoning into a single log line.

Having a single log line is extremely useful in general as you don't have to filter all the relevant information within other log lines and makes easier to extract a single thread pathway within a multi-threaded application.

however I do like this snippet: > Try keep the “meat” of your method at the lowest indentation level.

but I prefer doing that isolating atomic logics within their own method, instead of having multi-step pathway with early returns

Early returns only work well in untyped, statement oriented languages, like JavaScript.

I'd rather change the language.

Early returns work fine in Java and C# and Rust too, so I don't think that it's anything to do with dynamic typing, rather it's about how removing the burden of resource tracking from the programmer makes early return more viable.

While I think the advice in this post is pretty sound (guard clauses are a great alternative to bailing out of a function in various places, because you can see the conditions up front and not as what is essentially an afterthought), I do take issue with the language we tend to use when sharing advice.

The advice we give is often prescriptive or absolute, in that you have to avoid doing something, or you should never do something, or there is a best practice. More often than not it strips out the nuance, as if the new position has somehow managed to resolve all of the issues that cause the year--even decade--long debates in the first place, and it is far more often the case that the choice is more than preferential.

And what makes it bizarre is evidenced in the article itself: the original, prescriptive position is neutered in a follow-up edit that claims to take the position in balance because it won't make sense in every situation.

The top comment in this thread talks about the evolution of a programmer; surely one of the greater evolutions of your career in the field is to understand that all of this advice is purely dependent on context and an all-or-nothing approach to rule making isn't going to cut it; in fact it will likely make things worse when aspiring programmers take it as gospel and start trying to shoehorn these best practices into whatever code they can, adding all kinds of linters and such to enforce the rules in all cases and prioritizing style over implementation in code reviews. Code must fit in 80 characters in a line; it must omit semi-colons if it's JS; it must use 2 spaces for indentation; it must be extracted into a method if it has more than 5 lines...no matter what.

As an alternative, I instead propose that you think of good or better practices, also known as reasonable guidelines, and if you're going to build a style guide around them at least try to provide some alternatives should the preferred solution not fit the problem the programmer is currently facing. Treat it as an opportunity for mentoring and not just an instruction manual.

Most of those rules suggested are too ridged can be accomplished by formatters hooked into an editor's save function or version control commit. I don't want my developers spending any more time on whitespace. Anything not solved by an automated process should certainly be on a case by case basis. If half a file has semi colon endings it's reasonable to request it be uniform for that file.

The benefit to automated formatting is the style configuration can be swapped. if I HAVE to see altman brackets my editor can cook that format while my version control can hook whatever format the project requires.

Reminds me of Tom Duff's Essay 'Reading code from top to bottom': http://www.iq0.com/notes/deep.nesting.html

Depends on different factors, you can't just say one is better than the other. E.g. a function call itself might be quite expensive.

It's important to know both patterns though, so you are able to choose depending on your situation.

One nice thing about a single exit point is it's easier to add logging, particularly for logging a return value. Only one call is needed, instead of tracking down every exit point in the function.

This breaks down immediately because no matter how much is “handled” at the top, any one of the neatly-packed doSomething() and doMore() calls at the end can still fail and need handling. You can’t conveniently omit the mess that would be created for checking each of those.

“Errors in top if” is good advice but every “else” may need its own (indented) top “if”.

Indentation isn’t that nice but it is a very loud indicator of code becoming too complex, and a lack of indentation is a hint that an error might have gone unchecked.

> calls at the end can still fail and need handling… You can’t conveniently omit the mess that would be created for checking each of those.

For the purposes of this post, it is assumed that any errors produced in those calls will automatically bubble up the stack to some caller or to the top level. In my experience, most JS code is not written with fine-grained error checking around every expression, if there's any explicit error handling at all. The example code isn't intentionally omitting any mess, rather it appears to me to be fairly typical.

The "handing" at the top is mainly for checking function preconditions. e.g. "does it even make sense to proceed?". Early returns help to decouple precondition checking from the important logic of the function, which IMO makes these types of checks easier to write and maintain and thus more likely to exist.

A longer essay on similar issues:

http://www.anthonysteele.co.uk/TheSingleReturnLaw

Oh gosh yes. If I had a dollar for every time someone forgot a break statement in a "Found item in loop" scenario...

Well, LINQ ended that issue for me ;)

Avoid rules, use your judgment.

That's awful advice. Obviously _someone_ has to use their judgement to _create_ the rules. But if you have a large codebase that lots of people are interacting with, letting everyone "use their judgement" is going to create an unreadable mess of code, because you're going to have different patterns and approaches all over the place. It would be like writing a book and one paragraph is in English, the next in Spanish, the third in French, then the fourth goes back to Spanish, and on and on.

Dogma

I worked in a shop that lived by "use your judgement", and it was really the cleanest body of code that I've ever worked in with more than 30 people, in 20 years of professional coding.

Why? Because people with bad judgement were mercilessly brow-beaten into developing better judgement.

We had lots of different styles of code hanging around, and you could tell if code had been written by our CTO, our leads, different guys in different teams, etc. The one rule was "write like a chameleon, and make your code look like the code it is in." (okay... to make that work, the other was "spaces, not tabs")

The code was generally very readable, and it was a very adult codebase. The problem with hard rules is that comprehensive codification of complete rulesets is fundamentally intractable. You're always going to run into areas that don't fit, or the ruleset will be laughably overwrought (and, thus, impossible to put into practice).

You could call it the code-zealot incompleteness theorem...

Of course, if I get to make all the rules and have no obligation to be complete, consistent, or considerate, I can get on board with this plan.

> The one rule was "write like a chameleon, and make your code look like the code it is in."

I bounce between many code bases in multiple languages, and this has always been my rule. I first figure out why/how are things done, and then do them the same way within reason. If the existing code has something done in a way that is no longer valid/correct, then we have discussion about changing all of the code.

"Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules." - Strunk, The Elements of Style

Your advice is unfortunately common but misguided. Without a firm and intuitive grasp of "rules" and why they exist, one cannot build a framework for making decisions with which one can use their judgment. On top of that, most programmers aren't advanced enough to have more reliable judgment than "the rules" and few working groups can possibly survive a bunch of programmers "using their judgment" all over a nontrivial codebase even when those programmers are that advanced.

"Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules." - Guy who wrote the rule book

A better way of saying it might be: If you don't understand why the rule exists and don't have time to learn, follow the rule. When you follow the rule you may discover why it exists, when you don't follow the rule you will almost certainly discover why it exists.

Judgment is subjective so this pattern fails when there are more than one person reading the code or the same person at different time.

You end up with code written in several different styles within the same codebase. Assumptions that don't hold, etc. Much harder to reason about and maintain.

If I have a choice of using if (err) or if (!err) I'm going to use if (err) to avoid the negation. Same conclusion ultimately, but for a different reason. Bit of a discussion about it here: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3504...

This refactoring is so simple and obvious I don't even understand why some people don't write like this by default. I've had colleagues comment my PR on my "failed validation, return early" code saying "we generally strive to maintain one single point of return". I mean, why would you want only one return even?

> I mean, why would you want only one return even?

Some other comments here discuss resource cleanup issues that can creep into C code with early return.

If you're not coding in C, then more likely it's pure cargo-cult.

Right, I should've mentioned except arcane things (for us pleb web devs) happening in low-level languages.

As someone who has been working on a Scala codebase for the past year and who now forgets to use the `return` keyword in other languages, it still pains me when I see stuff like that first example in coding interviews. It doesn't help that the solution for my go-to problem has a bunch of places where you can return early...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7264145/if-less-programm...

Nothing is new. When I was a NOOP programmer I knew the crusty old build engineer called Diane. She did not like my shell script and rewrote it with a terse comment "Exit early and often". The same idea as the article and this was in the late 1990s. It was a lot shorter and easier to understand.

Usually we call this fail fast in the java world. There's a similar item in Java by Comparison on that: https://pragprog.com/book/javacomp/java-by-comparison#conten...

I agree with everything apart having if and return statement in the same line. It makes code really difficult to read.

In addition, I also like is to avoid if/else when returning bool values:

  if (a > b) {
     return true;
  } else {
     return false;
  }

Could be simply written as

  return (a > b);

In Common Lisp the syntax for early return is so ugly (```(return-from function-name result)```) that I use it very rarely. In general, it seems that in the languages that use implicit return (Lisps, Haskell, Rust?) having an early return is discouraged by design.

Early return is very common in Rust, either explicit or hidden within the try! macro (which recently became the ? operator, since it was used so often).

In Lisp other structures come into play that effectively give you early return in various situations, like for example cond.

  (cond
    (early-return-condition early-value)
    (second-early-condition early-value2)
    ...
    (t final-else-value))

A cond as the last (or only) form of a body is basically an N-way switch toward multiple exit points, the ones appearing first being earlier.

In TXR Lisp I made block have dynamic scope, not only dynamic binding. You can do this:

   (defun helper ()
     (return-from master 42))

   (defun master ()
     (helper))

I.e. early return from nested helper functions, without a lot of added ceremony.

Speaking of this dialect, here is a function from its C internals, exhibiting a preference for an early return over else:

  val flatten(val list)
  {
    if (list == nil)
      return nil;

    if (atom(list))
      return cons(list, nil);
              
    return mappend(func_n1(flatten), list);                              
  }

If this were in the Lisp dialect instead of C, the same author would write it like this:

  (defun flatten (list)
    (cond
      ((null list) nil)
      ((atom list) (list list))
      (t [mappend flatten list])))

and certainly not like this:

  (defun flatten (list)
    (when (null list)
      (return-from flatten nil))
    (when (atom list)
      (return-from flatten (list list))
    [mappend flatten list])

Even if the implicit block around a function body were the anonymous block, so that (return (list list)) could be used, this would still be eschewed as unidiomatic Lisp.

In the rare case a return is needed, I prefer to put a nil block and a simple return, e.g. (return value). The nil block stands out and warns about the presence of a return. It also helps that all iteration constructs (do-*) have an implicit nil block.

Common Lisp does not use explicit returns much, since every expression returns one (or more) values.

  (lambda ()
    (cond ((foo) x)
          ((bar) y)
          (t     z)))

Such a conditional like COND returns the value(s) of the last form in a clause -> here either the value of x, y or z.

Small bit of trivia: the 8080/Z-80 microprocessors had conditional return instructions that were only a single byte long. I utilized these instructions heavily when trying to cram my code into a single EPROM, because the jump instructions were 2 or 3 bytes.

At some point in the last few years, I shifted into doing this, but I've just recently been trying to decide if it's a good idea. Every once in a while I lean into some cute little expedience that later annoys me when I'm digging in old code.

How to do this in a for-loop:

  for (int 1 = 0; i < length; i++) {
    if (checkError(i))
      continue;
  
    ... // happy path
  }

You can also use a return statement inside the for-loop if you want to exit the entire function.

I usually prefer explicit if...else blocks even when all or some of them return, because it's always good to see the big picture with blocks that are executed only on certain condition. In other words, see the code tree almost literally.

I believe this strategy is called "get to no asap". If you need to validate the data coming into a method, do it first and throw the error/return as soon as you can so the rest of the method is doing the work intended.

I guess I'm the minority here, I prefer "if else" with the happy path inside the if.

Returning early gives me mental overhead of keeping the "elses" on my head, and doing it in Scala makes the code look more verbose.

I don't think you're in the minority. Whenever possible the happy path should be inside the if. The article seems to imply otherwise but on re-read I think he is just building the case for putting the simple, quick pre-condition type handling up front which generally removes the need for the if/then (which I agree with).

For complex methods with branching logic you want prominently displayed, you'd end up with:

def myfunction(args) {

  // check preconditions, return early

  if (x) {
    // happy path
  } else {
    // less happy path
  }

}

But if the else just contains a bunch of error handling you always have the option of wrapping it in a handler method and putting it near the top in a on-liner.

Problem is, you may build the if pyramid of death, if you branch too deep.

So break early.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIl_BNIJcFg

In case guard-clause is used for input-validation, how about extracting the arguments to a class of which constructor prevents instantiation of a class with invalid input, and pass that to the function?

I totally agree with this one. Especially:

1. It reduce the indention level, makes the code cleaner. 2. Keep the error handling cases at the top of the method, the rest of the method can be written with more ease.

I would also argue that you should throw an exception early when the function cannot return what it promised to return.

When you break your application fast you generate less bugs.

Removing the braces and returning the unneeded non-result of handleError to save a couple LOC is penny wise pound foolish.

Is this a common JS idiom?

The `err, result` signature of the function indicates that it will be executed asynchronously, and thus the return value can't be captured by anything anyway.

> We also generally don’t care about return values in JS

I don't find that to be the case, though JS isn't my main language.

Post is referring to async programming in node's callback style (non-promise-based functions executed asynchronously) where return values cannot be captured even if you want to.

I can recall this, this was taught to me in Computer Architecture class, while designing the processor.

Reminds me of using GOTO back in my early days... certainly could lead to more confusing code.

I use both if else and return, so in case I forget any the code still works as intended.

This is why I'm so sad that Elixir doesn't have a return statement.

But Elixir 'does' have early returns, they are known as `Guards` as a language construct.

Yeah but that's only half the argument, right? Early returns make control flow a lot easier to read in general, not only when checking preconditions.

There are no silver bullets. There is no substitute for clear thinking.

I just noticed that the blog's title is "Probably Wrong"

And keep your functions / methods down to ~60-70 LOC each.

thanks for raising that up, it's always good to doubt anything obvious, however, it looks like it'll continue writing if-else complete code :)

I'm down-voting all arguing about brace style. Whenever I see discussions about brace style, I just roll my eyes.

The sign of someone who doesn't value their time is someone who argues about brace style.

Seriously.

TLDR: use guard clauses (when appropriate for readability and cognitive load)

This article was noise

Good advice except for the last example which is brittle and unnecessary. If handleError() is ever changed this method could start returning values unexpectedly. Totally unnecessary and not a worthwhile "optimization" to save lines of code.

The `err, results` params form the signature of a continuation-passing style "errback":

    function(err, results) {
      if (err) // …
    }

It is assumed that this function will be executed asynchronously, and thus it's not possible for anything to consume the return value anyway.

If you want to control the return value, simply return on a new line or use the void operator:

   return void handleError(err)

This goes against best practice as proposed by Steve McConnel in his "Code Complete."

Premature return considered harmful.

Certainly is hard to read nested code, but returning earlier makes it harder because now our mind has to construct the execution path instead of reading it. What I usually do is writing the body in a new procedure. Dijkstra designed a language with no return statement with a very simple semantics made for proving the program behaves exactly as its specification mandates. Niklaus Wirth designed Oberon with no return statement. Currently I write Go code only using return at the end of the procedure, my code is easy to follow and I have fewer errors than before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarded_Command_Language https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.h...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com